Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/digger.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/digger-2.4.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://github.com/tobagin/digger Description: A powerful and modern DNS lookup tool built with Vala, GTK4, and libadwaita. Digger provides an intuitive interface for performing DNS queries with advanced features including batch lookups, server comparison, DNSSEC validation, and DNS-over-HTTPS support. Fedora Account System Username: pemensik
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9781457 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2413648-digger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09781457-digger/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.
> Requires: hicolor-icons-theme should be hicolor-icon-theme > Requires: glib2 Can be dropped, rpmbuild adds libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) as req already. however, Requires: dig is likely needed.
dig is command used, the package is bind-utils, so please add: Requires: bind-utils
I think I will add instead Requires: /usr/bin/dig I have bind-utils and bind9-next-utils, providing both dig in different versions. In CentOS stream there is more variants. This would satisfy any of them. glib2 explicit requires is done because of some directory ownership. I know library itself would be generated. But sure, I did not catch hicolor-icon-theme is singular. I will post update later, I have it on different computer. Thank you for a quick review!
> I think I will add instead Requires: /usr/bin/dig Ok, make sense. > glib2 explicit requires is done because of some directory ownership. Ack
Spec URL: https://github.com/pemensik/digger/raw/refs/heads/f42-fedora/packaging/digger.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/digger-2.4.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Downstream URL: https://github.com/pemensik/digger/tree/f42-fedora Requires dig according to comment #2.
Created attachment 2113829 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9781457 to 9786117
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9786117 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2413648-digger/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09786117-digger/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 Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== 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. [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. [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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: 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). [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. [x]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: digger-2.4.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm digger-2.4.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp98aatlhd')] checks: 32, packages: 2 digger.src: E: spelling-error ('libadwaita', '%description -l en_US libadwaita -> landward, libidinal, liability') digger.src: E: spelling-error ('lookups', '%description -l en_US lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups') digger.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libadwaita', '%description -l en_US libadwaita -> landward, libidinal, liability') digger.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('lookups', '%description -l en_US lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups') digger.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary digger-vala digger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Digger digger.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Digger digger.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency glib2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: digger-debuginfo-2.4.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2ghh9gdm')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 digger.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/digger-vala /lib64/libsoup-3.0.so.0 digger.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libadwaita', '%description -l en_US libadwaita -> headwaiter') digger.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('lookups', '%description -l en_US lookups -> lookup, lockups, hookups') digger.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary digger-vala digger.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Digger digger.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency glib2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings, 9 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tobagin/digger/archive/refs/tags/v2.4.0/digger-2.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2964e6e101b94e0a99571be129c9394da37c0e6e1c079c980cea878343d14e03 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2964e6e101b94e0a99571be129c9394da37c0e6e1c079c980cea878343d14e03 Requires -------- digger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/dig glib2 hicolor-icon-theme libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgee-0.8.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgraphene-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- digger: application() application(io.github.tobagin.digger.desktop) digger digger(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(io.github.tobagin.digger.metainfo.xml) Summary: ========== - change Summary to Advanced DNS Lookup Tool - sort BuildRequires and Requires lines You can fix these on import, package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/digger
FEDORA-2025-89373ae987 (digger-2.4.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-89373ae987
FEDORA-2025-8ef52b7677 (digger-2.4.0-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8ef52b7677
FEDORA-2025-8ef52b7677 (digger-2.4.0-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-3b9bdf7bc6 (digger-2.1.4-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3b9bdf7bc6
FEDORA-2025-3b9bdf7bc6 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-2025-3b9bdf7bc6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3b9bdf7bc6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-89373ae987 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-2025-89373ae987 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-89373ae987 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-3b9bdf7bc6 (digger-2.1.4-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-89373ae987 (digger-2.4.0-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required.