spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/openarm-can/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09693600-openarm-can/openarm-can.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/openarm-can/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09693600-openarm-can/openarm-can-1.1.0%5E20251016git010ea25-1.fc44.src.rpm description: A C++ library for CAN communication with OpenArm robotic hardware, supporting Damiao motors over CAN/CAN-FD interfaces. This library is a part of OpenArm. fas: fed500 Package name change from openarm_can to openarm-can requested upstream https://github.com/enactic/openarm_can/pull/58#discussion_r2434277183 Previous review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2399993 Reproducible: Always
The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Found: Re-Review Request: openarm-can - 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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9710644 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404364-openarm-can/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09710644-openarm-can/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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 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 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 2940 bytes in 1 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openarm- can-utils [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm openarm-can-devel-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm openarm-can-utils-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.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/tmpazmxdeci')] checks: 32, packages: 4 openarm-can-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openarm-can-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation openarm-can.spec: W: no-%check-section 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: openarm-can-debuginfo-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm openarm-can-utils-debuginfo-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.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/tmpfaqz6vbo')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 5 openarm-can-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation openarm-can-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 41 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/enactic/openarm_can/archive/010ea250f7ffdcc0d16d16bafd29a713f89df070/openarm_can-010ea25.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c67665af68c2f8fd8021e9f96f370bf1c916f7a5934eabaebb26aab369777da7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c67665af68c2f8fd8021e9f96f370bf1c916f7a5934eabaebb26aab369777da7 Requires -------- openarm-can (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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) openarm-can-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libopenarm_can.so.1()(64bit) openarm-can(x86-64) openarm-can-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 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) libopenarm_can.so.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 -------- openarm-can: libopenarm_can.so.1()(64bit) openarm-can openarm-can(x86-64) openarm_can openarm-can-devel: cmake(OpenArmCAN) cmake(openarmcan) openarm-can-devel openarm-can-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(openarm-can) openarm-can-utils: openarm-can-utils openarm-can-utils(x86-64) a( Can you add a comment about these lines: Provides: openarm_can = %{version} Obsoletes: openarm_can <= 1.1.0 b) Also fix alignment with lines above. c) Should -utils have: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} or is auto generated .so deps good enough? d) the 1.1.0 release is just 10 days, still a newer git hash is required, why?
> > > a( Can you add a comment about these lines: > > Provides: openarm_can = %{version} > Obsoletes: openarm_can <= 1.1.0 > Needed to ensure if someone uses old package name, it can be found. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages > b) Also fix alignment with lines above. > Ok > c) Should -utils have: > > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > or is auto generated .so deps good enough? > These are scripts. They do not need the .so files. > d) the 1.1.0 release is just 10 days, still a newer git hash is required, > why? This allows obsoleting of the previous package, a better installation process for the utility scripts and to test packit for the automatic upgrade process. spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/openarm-can.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/openarm-can-1.1.0%5e20251016git010ea25-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2110432 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9710644 to 9714797
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9714797 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404364-openarm-can/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09714797-openarm-can/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.
Thanks for inputs, all is good now. Package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openarm-can
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-70b4737f5f (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-70b4737f5f
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d86e8159c8 (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d86e8159c8
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2a25c46ec6 (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2a25c46ec6
FEDORA-2025-c897a7353f (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c897a7353f
FEDORA-2025-e363563786 (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e363563786
Thanks for the review. https://release-monitoring.org/project/386437/
FEDORA-2025-e363563786 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-e363563786 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e363563786 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2a25c46ec6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2a25c46ec6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-c897a7353f has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-c897a7353f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c897a7353f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d86e8159c8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d86e8159c8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-70b4737f5f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-70b4737f5f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-2a25c46ec6 (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-e363563786 (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d86e8159c8 (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-c897a7353f (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-70b4737f5f (openarm-can-1.1.0^20251016git010ea25-1.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.