Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/vim-vala/vim-vala.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/vim-vala/vim-vala-20251210g44b2dfd-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: This is a Vim plugin that provides file detection, syntax highlighting, proper indentation, better Syntastic integration, code snippets and more for the Vala programming language. Fedora Account System Username: fujiwara
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10020823 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430348-vim-vala/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10020823-vim-vala/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.
Updated. Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/vim-vala/vim-vala.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/vim-vala/vim-vala-20251210g44b2dfd-2.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2122343 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10020823 to 10021287
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10021287 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430348-vim-vala/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10021287-vim-vala/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 Suggestions: 1) rpmlint reported difference between individual SPEC and SPEC packaged in SRPM. I think this happened due to rpmautospec usage. if there is really any difference then fix it before importing this package in Fedora. 2) This package used Source1 as maintainer written file which is CC0-1.0 licensed but that license is not added in License: tag. Based on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_more_complex_example , it is recommended to add CC0-1.0 in License tag 3) The vim-vala.metainfo.xml should use "update_contact" and not "updatecontact". Check https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html#qsr-app-contents ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/2430348-vim-vala/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [-]: 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: 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 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 3367 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). [?]: 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. [-]: %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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vim-vala-20251210g44b2dfd-2.fc44.noarch.rpm vim-vala-20251210g44b2dfd-2.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/tmp0zuxlg98')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vala-lang/vala.vim/archive/44b2dfde07fb65e75e8b3a87b57f0c771efbbb13/vala.vim-44b2dfd.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6184e4bfc86f19ba061b1ecf07f0ed77fedb112c09f2747b57686865c99bf314 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6184e4bfc86f19ba061b1ecf07f0ed77fedb112c09f2747b57686865c99bf314 Requires -------- vim-vala (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vim-data vim-filesystem Provides -------- vim-vala: metainfo() metainfo(vim-vala.metainfo.xml) vim-vala Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/test/2430348-vim-vala/srpm/vim-vala.spec 2026-01-20 18:15:37.729890244 +0530 +++ /home/test/2430348-vim-vala/srpm-unpacked/vim-vala.spec 2026-01-16 05:30:00.000000000 +0530 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global commit 44b2dfde07fb65e75e8b3a87b57f0c771efbbb13 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) @@ -52,4 +62,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog - +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Jan 16 2026 John Doe <packager> - 20251210g44b2dfd-2 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2430348 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Java, Python, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH APROVED.
Updated. Spec URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/vim-vala/vim-vala.spec SRPM URL: https://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/vim-vala/vim-vala-20251210g44b2dfd-3.fc43.src.rpm (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #5) > Suggestions: > 1) rpmlint reported difference between individual SPEC and SPEC packaged in > SRPM. I think this happened due to rpmautospec usage. > if there is really any difference then fix it before importing this package > in Fedora. It's a difference between `rpmbuild -bs` and `fedpkg srpm` and should not be a problem. > 3) The vim-vala.metainfo.xml should use "update_contact" and not > "updatecontact". Check > https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html#qsr- > app-contents The original typo comes from vim-syntastic package.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-vala
FEDORA-2026-3fa7b91308 (vim-vala-20251210g44b2dfd-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-3fa7b91308
FEDORA-2026-3fa7b91308 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-3fa7b91308` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-3fa7b91308 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-3fa7b91308 (vim-vala-20251210g44b2dfd-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.