Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/emacs-jinx.spec SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/emacs-jinx-2.4-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Fast just-in-time spell-checker for Emacs Fedora Account System Username: mavit
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9832865 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2416747-emacs-jinx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09832865-emacs-jinx/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Depends on https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-82e576fa21
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9835837 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2416747-emacs-jinx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09835837-emacs-jinx/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Both issues corrected. SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/emacs-jinx-2.4-3.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2116187 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9835837 to 9836677
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9836677 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2416747-emacs-jinx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09836677-emacs-jinx/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. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. .so file is emacs module [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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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: 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 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 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: emacs-jinx-2.4-3.fc44.x86_64.rpm emacs-jinx-2.4-3.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/tmp4ua2rjlh')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: emacs-jinx-debuginfo-2.4-3.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/tmp47_8_e1z')] 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 emacs-jinx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/emacs/site-lisp/jinx-mod.so /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- emacs-jinx: /usr/lib64/emacs/site-lisp/jinx-mod.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/minad/jinx/archive/refs/tags/2.4.tar.gz#/jinx-2.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8796c5c73e8a44a256a8d820ecede7d234130011ef5df1e3e23a91f96503a2eb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8796c5c73e8a44a256a8d820ecede7d234130011ef5df1e3e23a91f96503a2eb Requires -------- emacs-jinx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emacs(bin) libc.so.6()(64bit) libenchant-2.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- emacs-jinx: emacs-jinx emacs-jinx(x86-64) Summary: -------- Just some harmless comments: > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/pkg-config > BuildRequires: emacs-devel > BuildRequires: emacs-nw >= %{emacs_version_with_archsitelispdir} > BuildRequires: enchant2-devel > BuildRequires: gcc Consider to sort these lines > install -d %{buildroot}%{_emacs_archsitelispdir}/ \ > %{buildroot}%{_emacs_sitelispdir}/ \ > %{buildroot}%{_emacs_sitelispdir}/site-start.d/ > install -m 0644 %{pkg}-autoloads.el \ > %{buildroot}%{_emacs_sitelispdir}/site-start.d/ > install -m 0644 %{pkg}.el %{pkg}.elc %{buildroot}%{_emacs_sitelispdir}/ > install -m 0755 %{pkg}-mod.so %{buildroot}%{_emacs_archsitelispdir}/ Could use -D option to simplify a bit, but don't matter much. package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs-jinx
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-bfded58067
Thanks for the review!