Spec URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/vali/vali.spec SRPM URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/vali/vali-0.1.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/emersion/vali Description: Varlink C implementation and code generator. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141531879
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10055049 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432607-vali/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10055049-vali/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.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/abauer/2432607-vali/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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 1966 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vali- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: vali-0.1.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm vali-devel-0.1.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm vali-0.1.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmppmjf8au_')] checks: 32, packages: 3 vali.src: E: spelling-error ('Varlink', 'Summary(en_US) Varlink -> Var link, Var-link, Blink') vali.src: E: spelling-error ('Varlink', '%description -l en_US Varlink -> Var link, Var-link, Blink') vali.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Varlink', 'Summary(en_US) Varlink -> Var link, Var-link, Blink') vali.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Varlink', '%description -l en_US Varlink -> Var link, Var-link, Blink') vali-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vali vali-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 22 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.0 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: vali-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm vali-devel-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.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-legacy-licenses.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/tmp5g3nx8u1')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 4 vali.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Varlink', 'Summary(en_US) Varlink -> Var link, Var-link, Interlink') vali.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Varlink', '%description -l en_US Varlink -> Var link, Var-link, Interlink') vali-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vali vali-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 35 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/emersion/vali/-/releases/v0.1.1/downloads/vali-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 791785eca66392f91f28ca371ba9cfa2dc11915df0bff9f590a33453f67e5756 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 791785eca66392f91f28ca371ba9cfa2dc11915df0bff9f590a33453f67e5756 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/emersion/vali/-/releases/v0.1.1/downloads/vali-0.1.1.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 346f999bbe8c54ef6216878412a94b266421cb0e37562a227febe0ffe8bc5000 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 346f999bbe8c54ef6216878412a94b266421cb0e37562a227febe0ffe8bc5000 https://emersion.fr/.well-known/openpgpkey/hu/dj3498u4hyyarh35rkjfnghbjxug6b19#/gpgkey-0FDE7BE0E88F5E48.gpg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d7a186aa554bab26317d6a9d910915a0af97d90689a9d02c124c357feb8cafca CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d7a186aa554bab26317d6a9d910915a0af97d90689a9d02c124c357feb8cafca Requires -------- vali (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libaml.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5(JSONC_0.14)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vali-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libc.so.6()(64bit) libvali.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(aml) pkgconfig(json-c) rtld(GNU_HASH) vali(x86-64) Provides -------- vali: libvali.so.1()(64bit) vali vali(x86-64) vali-devel: pkgconfig(vali) vali-devel vali-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2432607 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Package builds in mock and Fedora review looks good. No changes needed. Package approved.
I'd appreciate it if you would review this package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2432587 It should very straightforward.
Thanks for the review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vali
FEDORA-2026-ca32ab3ecb (vali-0.1.1-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-ca32ab3ecb
FEDORA-2026-ca32ab3ecb (vali-0.1.1-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.