Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09537150-gnulib-l10n/gnulib-l10n.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09537150-gnulib-l10n/gnulib-l10n-20241231-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Localizations for Gnulib Fedora Account System Username: lzaoral
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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/9572696 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2396639-gnulib-l10n/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09572696-gnulib-l10n/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.
At a glance, this looks great. However, it seems like you should be able to remove %global debug_package %{nil} and add BuildArch: noarch instead. Am I missing anything?
Yeah, you're right, Ben. Thanks! For some reason, I thought that gettext machine objects are not arch-independent but I was proven wrong after some tests on aarch64 and s390x. Package with noarch: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09626651-gnulib-l10n/gnulib-l10n.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09626651-gnulib-l10n/gnulib-l10n-20241231-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Localizations for Gnulib Fedora Account System Username: lzaoral
Created attachment 2107952 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9572696 to 9626683
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9626683 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2396639-gnulib-l10n/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09626683-gnulib-l10n/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 issues found; the package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License", "FSF All Permissive License". 86 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2396639-gnulib-l10n/licensecheck.txt Licenses other than LGPL-2.1-or-later are all associated with build-system files, so they do not contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs and are correctly not included in the License expression. All other licenses I found in the source (FSFAP, FSFUL, FSFULLR, GPL-2.0-or-later, GPL-3.0-or-later, X11) are allowed for code in Fedora. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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 177 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source1: https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnulib/gnulib-l10n-20241231.tar.gz.sig, Source0: https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnulib/gnulib-l10n-20241231.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ OK: sources can be downloaded using "spectool -g", but very slowly and with a long delay before the download begins at all. I suspect that fedora-review simply timed out. [-]: 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. Upstream does not provide any tests. The package looks reasonable, and there is every reason to believe that it does what it claims to. [x]: Latest version is packaged. A later version of gnulib is available, but this appears to be the most current gnulib-l10n release. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments Source URLs are OK (even though ftp.gnu.org is overloaded); origin of GPG keyring is properly documented. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream does not provide any tests. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnulib-l10n-20241231-1.fc44.noarch.rpm gnulib-l10n-20241231-1.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/tmp2u6m_2nq')] checks: 32, packages: 2 gnulib-l10n.src: W: strange-permission gnulib-l10n-20241231.tar.gz 666 gnulib-l10n.src: W: strange-permission gnulib-l10n-20241231.tar.gz.sig 666 gnulib-l10n.src: W: strange-permission gnulib-l10n-keyring.gpg 666 gnulib-l10n.src: W: strange-permission gnulib-l10n.spec 666 gnulib-l10n.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Localizations', "Summary(en_US) Localizations -> Vocalizations, Localization, Localization's") gnulib-l10n.noarch: E: spelling-error ('localizations', "%description -l en_US localizations -> localization, localization's, vocalizations") gnulib-l10n.src: E: spelling-error ('Localizations', "Summary(en_US) Localizations -> Vocalizations, Localization, Localization's") gnulib-l10n.src: E: spelling-error ('localizations', "%description -l en_US localizations -> localization, localization's, vocalizations") gnulib-l10n.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 1 gnulib-l10n.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Localizations', "Summary(en_US) Localizations -> Vocalizations, Localization, Localization's") gnulib-l10n.noarch: E: spelling-error ('localizations', "%description -l en_US localizations -> localization, localization's, vocalizations") 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Requires -------- gnulib-l10n (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gnulib-l10n: gnulib-l10n Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2396639 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Java, R, C/C++, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnulib-l10n
FEDORA-2025-2c7d3e50c1 (coreutils-9.8-3.fc44 and gnulib-l10n-20241231-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2c7d3e50c1
FEDORA-2025-2c7d3e50c1 (coreutils-9.8-3.fc44 and gnulib-l10n-20241231-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.