Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/enter-tex.spec SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/enter-tex-3.49.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Enter TeX is a TeX/LaTeX text editor. The application was previously named LaTeXila and then GNOME LaTeX. It permits to concentrate on the content and the structure of the document instead of being distracted by its presentation. Fedora Account System Username: yselkowitz
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9974430 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2427068-enter-tex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09974430-enter-tex/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.
The copr buildroot is delayed and hence doesn't have the latest dependencies needed by this version. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140755402
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10010606 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2427068-enter-tex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10010606-enter-tex/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/enter-tex/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/enter-tex/2427068-enter- tex/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 825 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/enter-tex/2427068-enter- tex/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/share/help/de, /usr/share/help/ru, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/es, /usr/share/help/fr, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/cs, /usr/share/help/el, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/help/gl, /usr/share/help/sv, /usr/share/help/hu, /usr/share/help/da, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/help/uk [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 33613 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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 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]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/enter- tex/2427068-enter-tex/srpm-unpacked/enter-tex.spec See: (this test has no URL) [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2140160 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: enter-tex-3.49.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm enter-tex-3.49.0-1.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/tmpqy8pl1jc')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: enter-tex-debuginfo-3.49.0-1.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/tmpk3oorfvb')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/gedit/enter-tex/-/archive/3.49.0/enter-tex-3.49.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cd83dc75c36edcc9fc53c27b092796f0c1df1c4e1b36a15516a56e7aab48f31d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fff2f65c3a01c3d3ee4453bfede407093bf3b53a9f0d93e9955ddc8dcf2f3d25 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- enter-tex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghostscript-tools-dvipdf gsettings-desktop-schemas hicolor-icon-theme latexmk libc.so.6()(64bit) libdconf.so.1()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgedit-amtk-5.so.0()(64bit) libgedit-gtksourceview-300.so.4()(64bit) libgedit-tepl-6.so.4()(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) libgspell-1.so.3()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- enter-tex: application() application(org.gnome.enter_tex.desktop) enter-tex enter-tex(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.gnome.enter_tex.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(text/x-tex) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2427068 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, PHP, R, Perl, Python, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141256973 b) Any way to fix directory ownership problems? c) In the description, consider changing: GNOME LaTeX permits to concentrate on the content and the structure of the document instead of being distracted by its presentation. to Enter Tex permits to concentrate on the content and the structure of the document instead of being distracted by its presentation.
> Comments: > b) Any way to fix directory ownership problems? /usr/share/help/* file listings are handled by `%find_lang`, per the guidelines. Either this is an issue with the macro, or the filesystem package needs to handle them too. Either way, this is not an issue with this particular package. > c) In the description, consider changing: > GNOME LaTeX permits to concentrate on the > content and the structure of the document instead of being distracted by its > presentation. > to > Enter Tex permits to concentrate on the > content and the structure of the document instead of being distracted by its > presentation. This wording is from upstream, but I can fix it in the spec before uploading.
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #6) > > Comments: > > b) Any way to fix directory ownership problems? > > /usr/share/help/* file listings are handled by `%find_lang`, per the > guidelines. Either this is an issue with the macro, or the filesystem > package needs to handle them too. Either way, this is not an issue with > this particular package. See bug 2281584.
/usr/share/dbus-1 is also unowned. For the language directories, maybe own them until the bug gets fixed? Have raised a needinfo on the bug.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #8) > /usr/share/dbus-1 is also unowned. fedora-review has issues with directory ownership of transitive dependencies. There is no such thing as a modern desktop application without dbus, e.g.: gtk3 -> atk -> at-spi2-core -> dbus -> dbus-{broker,daemon} -> dbus-common But I went ahead and added it locally. > For the language directories, maybe own them until the bug gets fixed? > Have raised a needinfo on the bug. This is a known issue that affects many GNOME programs, it should be fixed centrally (either in filesystem or %find_lang) and should not be a blocker.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10115195 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2427068-enter-tex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10115195-enter-tex/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.