Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vittyvk/ripgrep-edit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10182821-ripgrep-edit/ripgrep-edit.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vittyvk/ripgrep-edit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10182821-ripgrep-edit/ripgrep-edit-0.3.7-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: ripgrep-edit enables razor coding by allowing LLM workflows to operate with razor-thin context, input and output. See https://gitlab.com/aarcange/ripgrep-edit/ for additional information. Fedora Account System Username:vittyvk
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10185519 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443772-ripgrep-edit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10185519-ripgrep-edit/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ripgrep-edit/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 /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/ripgrep-edit/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages I think the warning "Using prebuilt packages" here means that fedora-review is using the packages built in copr. I checked the sources and there are no blobs in there. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. OK, looks like GPLv3/AGPLv3 in the tarball, and the License field is correct. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 and/or GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ripgrep- edit/licensecheck.txt I checked the sources directly and it's OK. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. OK because installing the -emacs subpackage also installs the main package. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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 7274 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ripgrep- edit-emacs I think you need to check this is correct. You may have to add %{?_isa} so that it depends on the correct arch-specific package. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Upstream git repo is a bit confusing. I'm not sure if 0.3.8 is the latest version or is the current development version. Please confirm. [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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ripgrep- edit/srpm-unpacked/ripgrep-edit.spec See: (this test has no URL) I don't know if this is a real problem or not, but the spec file name seems fine to me. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ripgrep-edit-0.3.7-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ripgrep-edit-emacs-0.3.7-1.fc45.noarch.rpm ripgrep-edit-0.3.7-1.fc45.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/tmpoxo6hrde')] checks: 32, packages: 3 ripgrep-edit.spec: W: specfile-warning warning: line 26: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires: emacs-filesystem >= %{_emacs_version} [!] This seems like it is a problem. ripgrep-edit-emacs.noarch: W: no-documentation [x] We don't need docs for this subpackage. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ripgrep-edit-debuginfo-0.3.7-1.fc45.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/tmp0d5206eb')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ripgrep-edit-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ripgrep-edit". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ripgrep-edit-emacs". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/aarcange/ripgrep-edit/-/archive/0.3.7/ripgrep-edit-0.3.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 27179b08a2363ed691bb33eff21b3a0f2536ee070a9af7928398118267af55cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 39362dba413b294e4280ef423c1199d0db2a07017bdece5fa5d95991fe3c2d07 diff -r also reports differences [!] This is a problem, please check what's going on. Requires -------- ripgrep-edit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) ripgrep rtld(GNU_HASH) ripgrep-edit-emacs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emacs-filesystem ripgrep-edit Provides -------- ripgrep-edit: ripgrep-edit ripgrep-edit(x86-64) ripgrep-edit-emacs: ripgrep-edit-emacs Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ripgrep-edit --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #2) > > 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 /var/lib/copr- > rpmbuild/results/ripgrep-edit/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ I seemed to use the wrong tarball here, in COPR we use "make -f .copr/Makefile dist" and it will certainly not match upstream 1:1. Will use raw upstream then. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ripgrep- > edit-emacs > > I think you need to check this is correct. You may have to add %{?_isa} > so that it depends on the correct arch-specific package. I think we don't want %{?_isa} here: ripgrep-edit-emacs is explicitly 'noarch' and if I add %{?_isa} we will see: $ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/ripgrep-edit-emacs-0.3.8-1.fc45.noarch.rpm ... ripgrep-edit(x86-64) = 0.3.8-1.fc45 ... this means that ripgrep-edit-emacs is not really noarch. Here, we are happy with *any* ripgrep-edit of the same version regardless of the architecture. > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > > Upstream git repo is a bit confusing. I'm not sure if 0.3.8 is the latest > version or is the current development version. Please confirm. > I'll ask the upstream for a new version to avoid the confusion. > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ripgrep- > edit/srpm-unpacked/ripgrep-edit.spec > See: (this test has no URL) > > I don't know if this is a real problem or not, but the spec file name > seems fine to me. I'm equally confused with what's wrong with "ripgrep-edit.spec" name. > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://gitlab.com/aarcange/ripgrep-edit/-/archive/0.3.7/ripgrep-edit-0.3.7. > tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 27179b08a2363ed691bb33eff21b3a0f2536ee070a9af7928398118267af55cd > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 39362dba413b294e4280ef423c1199d0db2a07017bdece5fa5d95991fe3c2d07 > diff -r also reports differences > > [!] This is a problem, please check what's going on. > Yes, I used regenerated tarball instead of raw upstream one in the SRPM, will fix. Thanks a bunch for the review!
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #2) > > ripgrep-edit.spec: W: specfile-warning warning: line 26: Possible unexpanded > macro in: Requires: emacs-filesystem >= %{_emacs_version} > Here, I'm following Fedora packaging guidelines for emacs: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Emacs/ In particular, for "Case II" we do: %package emacs BuildRequires: emacs-nw Requires: emacs-filesystem >= %{_emacs_version} maybe "BuildRequires(pre):" could help avoid the warning.
Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/~vkuznets/rgedit/ripgrep-edit.spec SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/~vkuznets/rgedit/ripgrep-edit-0.3.8-1.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2132780 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10185519 to 10207169
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10207169 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2443772-ripgrep-edit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10207169-ripgrep-edit/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 package is APPROVED by rjones ***
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ripgrep-edit
FEDORA-2026-152787de54 (ripgrep-edit-0.3.8-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-152787de54
FEDORA-2026-152787de54 (ripgrep-edit-0.3.8-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.