copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seergdb/build/9516315/ srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-41-x86_64/09516315-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc41.src.rpm spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-41-x86_64/09516315-seergdb/seergdb.spec
The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Found: seergdb is a modern gdb front-end As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a build by typing [fedora-review-service-build]. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Added Ernie and Benson to CC list.
*** Bug 2390529 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated copr build: copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seergdb/build/9516315/ srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-41-x86_64/09516315-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc41.src.rpm spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-41-x86_64/09516315-seergdb/seergdb.spec
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9516347 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09516347-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
for "580 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/seergdb/licensecheck.txt" I got shorter list from prep'ed dir. Below are covered by project license GPLv3+. ``` # licensecheck -r * | grep UNKNOWN CHANGELOG.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN CONTRIBUTING.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/ABOUT.md: UNKNOWN src/resources/help/ArrayVisualizer.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/AttachDebugMode.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/BasicStructVisualizer.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/BreakpointGdbSeerManager.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/CodeManager.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/ConnectDebugMode.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/CorefileDebugMode.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/DebugModes.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/ImageVisualizer.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/MainWindow.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/MemoryVisualizer.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/Printpoints.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/RRDebugMode.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/RunDebugMode.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/SourceSymbolLibraryInfoBrowser.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/StackInfoBrowser.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/StructVisualizer.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/ThreadProcessInfoBrowser.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN src/resources/help/VariableRegisterInfoBrowser.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ```
SPDX license added to markdown files through a patch, copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seergdb/build/9519499/ srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-42-x86_64/09519499-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-42-x86_64/09519499-seergdb/seergdb.spec
Created attachment 2105666 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9516347 to 9519512
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9519512 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09519512-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
removed backup files from patch which may misleads licensecheck, copr, https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seergdb/build/9519573/ srpm, https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-42-x86_64/09519573-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm spec, https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-42-x86_64/09519573-seergdb/seergdb.spec
Created attachment 2105668 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9519512 to 9519584
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9519584 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09519584-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
still have "557 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/seergdb/licensecheck.txt" all 217 files in prep'ed directory have license attached.
@benson_muite can you advise what I can do to improve the report? thanks.
chmod allows you to change permissions. Why the name change for the package from seer to seergdb?
May want to send metainfo.xml file upstream.
1. permission is interesting. I did the work in a docker and all look good there. so here will wrap outside. 2. for the renaming, the author communicated that he wants to use "seergdb" so it will be the same as what has done on debian/ubuntu side, and the only executable is "seergdb". The name indicates clear msg it's related to "gdb". 3. will communicated with author for the metainfo.xml. Thanks~
test copr with fixed permissions, let's see the new review template, copr, https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seergdb/build/9534403/ srpm, https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/epel-9-x86_64/09534403-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.el9.src.rpm spec, https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/epel-9-x86_64/09534403-seergdb/seergdb.spec created PR https://github.com/epasveer/seer/pull/351 to add metainfo.xml to upstream.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9534686 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09534686-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
it seems there's some umask thing during copr srpm rebuild? the provided srpm has write permisisons, but the rebuilt srpm doesn't. ``` yhw@dev-x x86_64 2025-09-08 EDT 13:51 /home/yhw/tmp ydsk [0] $ wget https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/epel-9-x86_64/09534403-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.el9.src.rpm yhw@dev-x x86_64 2025-09-08 EDT 13:52 /home/yhw/tmp ydsk [0] $ rpm2cpio seergdb-2.5-1.el9.src.rpm | cpio -imdv add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch seergdb-2.5.tar.gz seergdb.1 seergdb.metainfo.xml seergdb.spec 1518 blocks yhw@dev-x x86_64 2025-09-08 EDT 13:52 /home/yhw/tmp ydsk [0] $ ls -lart total 1468 -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 678263 Sep 2 12:54 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 3152 Sep 8 10:25 seergdb.spec -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 980 Sep 8 10:25 seergdb.metainfo.xml -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 540 Sep 8 10:25 seergdb.1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 8948 Sep 8 10:25 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 84313 Sep 8 10:25 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 yhw amazon 700443 Sep 8 13:52 seergdb-2.5-1.el9.src.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 yhw amazon 4096 Sep 8 13:52 . drwx------ 33 yhw amazon 4096 Sep 8 13:52 .. ``` ``` yhw@dev-x x86_64 2025-09-08 EDT 13:54 /home/yhw/tmp ydsk [0] $ wget https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-42-x86_64/09534686-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm yhw@dev-x x86_64 2025-09-08 EDT 13:54 /home/yhw/tmp ydsk [0] $ rpm2cpio seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm | cpio -imdv add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch seergdb-2.5.tar.gz seergdb.1 seergdb.metainfo.xml seergdb.spec 1518 blocks yhw@dev-x x86_64 2025-09-08 EDT 13:54 /home/yhw/tmp ydsk [0] $ ls -lart total 1468 -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 3152 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.spec -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 980 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.metainfo.xml -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 678263 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 540 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 8948 Sep 1 20:00 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 yhw amazon 84313 Sep 1 20:00 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 yhw amazon 704004 Sep 8 13:54 seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 yhw amazon 4096 Sep 8 13:54 . drwx------ 33 yhw amazon 4096 Sep 8 13:54 .. ```
ignore above comment. I suspect the change was from srpm rebuilt. will look into it.
let's try using original srpm then copr rebuilt srpm:) copr(running): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/xwalker/seergdb/build/9535521/ srpm: http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb-2.5-1.amzn2023.src.rpm spec: http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb.spec change: 1. replace source .metainfo.xml with a patch from a commit https://github.com/epasveer/seer/pull/351/commits/ab9f1af9d3587c1fbfaa6ee435d7197f042e19d7 it was about to add th metainfo.xml to the project and merged earlier today.
sounds the guess is true. the srpm uploaded here is seergdb-2.5-1.amzn2023.src.rpm, the rebuilt srpm in epel10 buildroot is seergdb-2.5-1.el10.src.rpm. as we can see the permissions were changed during rebuilt. ``` rocky@a1 ~/www/tests 15:40:11 ✔ $ ls -lRt .: total 8 drwxr-xr-x. 2 rocky rocky 4096 Sep 8 15:40 after-copr-rebuild drwxr-xr-x. 2 rocky rocky 4096 Sep 8 14:24 original_srpm ./after-copr-rebuild: total 1460 -rw-r--r--. 1 rocky rocky 704084 Sep 8 15:39 seergdb-2.5-1.el10.src.rpm -rw-rw-rw-. 1 rocky rocky 84313 Sep 1 20:00 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-rw-rw-. 1 rocky rocky 1553 Sep 1 20:00 add_metainfo_xml.patch -rw-rw-rw-. 1 rocky rocky 8948 Sep 1 20:00 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-rw-rw-. 1 rocky rocky 678263 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw-. 1 rocky rocky 540 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.1 -rw-rw-rw-. 1 rocky rocky 3276 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.spec ./original_srpm: total 1456 -rw-r--r--. 1 rocky rocky 700294 Sep 8 14:24 seergdb-2.5-1.amzn2023.src.rpm -rw-r--r--. 1 rocky rocky 3276 Sep 8 13:43 seergdb.spec -rw-r--r--. 1 rocky rocky 1553 Sep 8 13:32 add_metainfo_xml.patch -rw-r--r--. 1 rocky rocky 84313 Sep 8 13:28 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-r--r--. 1 rocky rocky 8948 Sep 8 13:28 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-r--r--. 1 rocky rocky 678263 Sep 8 13:28 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-r--r--. 1 rocky rocky 540 Sep 8 13:28 seergdb.1 rocky@a1 ~/www/tests 15:40:15 ✔ $ ```
Created attachment 2106047 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9535464 to 9535550
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9535464 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09535464-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
for the 666 permission issue, it seems pretty common, I saw it from https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392596-dustrac/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09515607-dustrac/fedora-review/review.txt as well.
Created attachment 2106060 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9535464 to 9535550
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9535550 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09535550-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
no change. retry. somehow the permissions seem to be fixed in old coprs. copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/xwalker/seergdb/build/9539977/ srpm: http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb-2.5-1.amzn2023.src.rpm spec: http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb.spec
the same. in uploaded srpm files have 644. but changed to 666 in rebuilt srpms. ``` # rpm -qlvp http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb-2.5-1.amzn2023.src.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 mockbuil mock 84313 Sep 8 13:28 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 mockbuil mock 1553 Sep 8 13:32 add_metainfo_xml.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 mockbuil mock 8948 Sep 8 13:28 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 mockbuil mock 678263 Sep 8 13:28 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 mockbuil mock 540 Sep 8 13:28 seergdb.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 mockbuil mock 3276 Sep 8 13:43 seergdb.spec root@f42 ~/tmp 10:27:10 ✔ # rpm -qlvp https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xwalker/seergdb/alma+epel-10-x86_64_v2/09539977-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.el10.src.rpm warning: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xwalker/seergdb/alma+epel-10-x86_64_v2/09539977-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.el10.src.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9e2be768: NOKEY -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 84313 Sep 1 20:00 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1553 Sep 1 20:00 add_metainfo_xml.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 8948 Sep 1 20:00 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 678263 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 540 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 3276 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.spec root@f42 ~/tmp 10:27:39 ✔ # rpm -qlvp https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xwalker/seergdb/fedora-42-ppc64le/09539977-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm warning: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xwalker/seergdb/fedora-42-ppc64le/09539977-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9e2be768: NOKEY -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 84313 Sep 1 20:00 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1553 Sep 1 20:00 add_metainfo_xml.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 8948 Sep 1 20:00 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 678263 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 540 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 3276 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.spec ```
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9540077 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09540077-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9540119 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09540119-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Could anybody help explain why the permission got changed, and how's the warning msg generated? I checked another review request, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373124 and it's copr build, it doesn't have that warning, but I have the same observations: copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/build/9537206/ ``` # rpm -qvlp https://www.uddeborg.se/portsentry/portsentry-2.0.4-1.fc44.src.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 120 Jun 16 17:50 fail2ban-jail.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 160310 Sep 1 20:00 portsentry-2.0.4.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4309 Sep 1 20:00 portsentry.spec root@f42 ~/tmp 11:00:58 ✔ # root@f42 ~/tmp 11:01:03 ✔ # rpm -qvlp https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-42-x86_64/09514987-portsentry/portsentry-2.0.4-1.fc42.src.rpm warning: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-42-x86_64/09514987-portsentry/portsentry-2.0.4-1.fc42.src.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 1e5ae417: NOKEY -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 120 Sep 1 20:00 fail2ban-jail.conf -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 160310 Sep 1 20:00 portsentry-2.0.4.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 4309 Sep 1 20:00 portsentry.spec root@f42 ~/tmp 11:01:17 ✔ # rpm -qvlp https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-43-x86_64/09514987-portsentry/portsentry-2.0.4-1.fc43.src.rpm warning: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373124-portsentry/fedora-43-x86_64/09514987-portsentry/portsentry-2.0.4-1.fc43.src.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 1e5ae417: NOKEY -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 120 Sep 1 20:00 fail2ban-jail.conf -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 160310 Sep 1 20:00 portsentry-2.0.4.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 4309 Sep 1 20:00 portsentry.spec ```
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xwalker/seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09539977-seergdb/seergdb.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xwalker/seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09539977-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc44.src.rpm
RPM build warnings: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Sep 02 2025 Yonghang Wang <wyhang> - 2.5-1
Everything should have a debuginfo package. Why are these disabled on RHEL9 and EPEL. The comment # disable test for now till I figure out how to enable @crb with copr is unclear to me, what is @crb ? If I change the permissions of all files to 644 before building the srpm locally, do not get strange permission warnings. For an example build see: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9542192
from srpm rebuilt from your copr build, I can still see the same. ``` $ rpm -qvpl https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09542192-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc44.src.rpm warning: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09542192-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc44.src.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 46206ecb: NOKEY -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 84313 Sep 1 20:00 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1553 Sep 1 20:00 add_metainfo_xml.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 8948 Sep 1 20:00 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 678263 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 540 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 3276 Sep 1 20:00 seergdb.spec ```
the file permissions are all right in the source rpm for the copr build, how/where the file permissions are evaluated?
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9543598 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09543598-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seergdb/build/9543953/ srpm: http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb-2.5-1.amzn2023.src.rpm spec: http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb.spec can you try copr build with above srpm? it has 644 but copr rebuilt changed to 666 somehow. sounds copr is not accepting new build temporarily. ``` $ rpm -qvpl http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb-2.5-1.amzn2023.src.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 ec2-userec2-user 84313 Sep 8 13:28 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 ec2-userec2-user 1553 Sep 8 13:32 add_metainfo_xml.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 ec2-userec2-user 8948 Sep 8 13:28 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-r--r-- 1 ec2-userec2-user 678263 Sep 8 13:28 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ec2-userec2-user 540 Sep 8 13:28 seergdb.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 ec2-userec2-user 3349 Sep 10 14:14 seergdb.spec $ rpm -qvpl https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-42-x86_64/09543953-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm warning: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seergdb/fedora-42-x86_64/09543953-seergdb/seergdb-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 06ff7118: NOKEY -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 84313 Sep 9 20:00 add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1553 Sep 9 20:00 add_metainfo_xml.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 8948 Sep 9 20:00 add_spdx_license_to_markdowns.patch -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 678263 Sep 2 12:54 seergdb-2.5.tar.gz -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 540 Sep 9 20:00 seergdb.1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 3349 Sep 9 20:00 seergdb.spec ```
Created attachment 2106440 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9543598 to 9551472
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9551472 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09551472-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
:) guess I know why --- just noticed that there's a separate project creation for Fedora review -- that may be the root cause we saw stragne permission issues but it's still strange --- let's what we can see in the new report, srpm: http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb-2.5-1.amzn2023.src.rpm spec: http://a1.xwalker.click/seergdb.spec copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seergdb/build/9694982/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9696632 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392647-seergdb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09696632-seergdb/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 558 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/seer/2392647-seergdb/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: seergdb-2.5-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm seergdb-2.5-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpr35sdtez')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: seergdb-debuginfo-2.5-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpm8y1ybfe')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/seer/seergdb.1 as upstream file:///home/fedora-packaging/reviews/seer/seergdb.1 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 66211bcbf470f43529f8d71d4c00a28089f6f211f413890403eb26cfe6d1e3a2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66211bcbf470f43529f8d71d4c00a28089f6f211f413890403eb26cfe6d1e3a2 https://github.com/epasveer/seer/archive/v2.5/seergdb-2.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06f8eac1ab26149e6919c3bb021c1052f4da42c17b540d87db944682a81071b3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06f8eac1ab26149e6919c3bb021c1052f4da42c17b540d87db944682a81071b3 Requires -------- seergdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gdb hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Charts.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Charts.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.10)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6()(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- seergdb: application() application(seergdb.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(seergdb.metainfo.xml) seergdb seergdb(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2392647 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, R, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please change desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{pkgname}.desktop %if 0%{?tests} appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metadir}/%{pkgname}.metainfo.xml to desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{pkgname}.desktop appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metadir}/%{pkgname}.metainfo.xml %if 0%{?tests} b) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138315267 c) Please update to latest release 2.6 d) Adding a license breakdown is helpful when updating the package, but does not block the review. e) Approved. Please fix (a) and (c) before import. For me to sponsor you, please do 3 mock package reviews and link to them here.