Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-provider_asn1.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Compile ASN.1 with Rebar3 Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143110969
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10200640 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2445457-erlang-provider_asn1/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10200640-erlang-provider_asn1/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.
Apart from the mixture of licensing terms for the source code I don't see anything weird so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. We have files licensed under MIT, files with LGPLv2.1 (colibri2 parts), FaCile is lcensed with LGPL w/o a specific version, some files are licensed unde LGPLv2 with linking exception. Maybe some of them didn't go into the final binary? Anyway please update licensing info. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 (%autochangelog). [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [x]: 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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [+/-]: Package is known to require an ExcludeArch tag but it's Ocaml-specific. [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: 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 934 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen ===== 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.1). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: 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: ocaml-store-0.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ocaml-store-devel-0.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ocaml-store-0.1-1.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/tmphwnjdmrh')] checks: 32, packages: 3 ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', 'Summary(en_US) Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable') ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('snapshotting', '%description -l en_US snapshotting -> snaps hotting, snaps-hotting, snapshot ting') ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('snapshottable', '%description -l en_US snapshottable -> snapshot table, snapshot-table, nontarnishable') ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('Clément', '%description -l en_US Clément -> Clement') ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', '%description -l en_US Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable') ocaml-store.src: E: spelling-error ('Proc', '%description -l en_US Proc -> Prof, Kroc, Crop') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', 'Summary(en_US) Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('snapshotting', '%description -l en_US snapshotting -> snaps hotting, snaps-hotting, snapshot ting') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('snapshottable', '%description -l en_US snapshottable -> snapshot table, snapshot-table, nontarnishable') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Clément', '%description -l en_US Clément -> Clement') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', '%description -l en_US Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Proc', '%description -l en_US Proc -> Prof, Kroc, Crop') ocaml-store-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 1 warnings, 11 filtered, 12 badness; has taken 0.8 s ^^^ false positives Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ocaml-store-debuginfo-0.1-1.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/tmp2kmwdl0e')] 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: 3 ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs camlStdlib.invalid_arg_337_closure (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_get_exception_raw_backtrace (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_exn_Assert_failure (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_call_gc (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_c_call (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs camlStdlib__Printf.ksprintf_207 (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_reraise_exn (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_modify (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_call_realloc_stack (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_raise_exn (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ocaml-store.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs caml_restore_raw_backtrace (/usr/lib64/ocaml/store/store.cmxs) ^^^ Ocaml-specific I guess. ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', 'Summary(en_US) Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('snapshotting', '%description -l en_US snapshotting -> snaps hotting, snaps-hotting, snapshot ting') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('snapshottable', '%description -l en_US snapshottable -> snapshot table, snapshot-table, nontarnishable') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Clément', '%description -l en_US Clément -> Clement') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Snapshottable', '%description -l en_US Snapshottable -> Snapshot table, Snapshot-table, Nontarnishable') ocaml-store.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Proc', '%description -l en_US Proc -> Prof, Kroc, Crop') ocaml-store-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 12 warnings, 13 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.8 s ^^^ False positives. Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/basile.clement/store/-/archive/v0.1/store-v0.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8891cc0b10774f3d048e2a213ea623306386d901034813d55feb082751ce1b4c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8891cc0b10774f3d048e2a213ea623306386d901034813d55feb082751ce1b4c Requires -------- ocaml-store (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__Obj) ocaml(Stdlib__Printexc) ocaml(Stdlib__Printf) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-store-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__Obj) ocaml(Stdlib__Printexc) ocaml(Stdlib__Printf) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml-store(x86-64) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__Printexc) ocamlx(Stdlib__Printf) Provides -------- ocaml-store: ocaml(Store) ocaml-store ocaml-store(x86-64) ocaml-store-devel: ocaml(Store) ocaml-store-devel ocaml-store-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Store) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2445872 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Ocaml, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, fonts, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Please adjust licensing tag information and I'll continue.
^^^ Sorry wrong window :)
I will take this review.
Looks good. This package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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: 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 4001 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. [x]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-1.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/tmpalna99jq')] checks: 32, packages: 2 erlang-provider_asn1.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/provider_asn1-0.4.1/ebin/provider_asn1.beam /builddir/build/BUILD/erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-build/provider_asn1-0.4.1/src/provider_asn1.erl erlang-provider_asn1.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/provider_asn1-0.4.1/ebin/provider_asn1_clean.beam /builddir/build/BUILD/erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-build/provider_asn1-0.4.1/src/provider_asn1_clean.erl erlang-provider_asn1.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/provider_asn1-0.4.1/ebin/provider_asn1_compile.beam /builddir/build/BUILD/erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-build/provider_asn1-0.4.1/src/provider_asn1_compile.erl erlang-provider_asn1.noarch: W: beam-was-not-recompiled /usr/share/erlang/lib/provider_asn1-0.4.1/ebin/provider_asn1_util.beam /builddir/build/BUILD/erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-build/provider_asn1-0.4.1/src/provider_asn1_util.erl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 7 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/knusbaum/provider_asn1/archive/0.4.1/provider_asn1-0.4.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e02c9bc16eec43a2bc08f9c7407f9dd5c6a2e3d1a57bca7f7c8929060aa5fc40 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e02c9bc16eec43a2bc08f9c7407f9dd5c6a2e3d1a57bca7f7c8929060aa5fc40 Requires -------- erlang-provider_asn1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-asn1(x86-64) erlang-erts(x86-64) erlang-kernel(x86-64) erlang-providers erlang-rebar3 erlang-stdlib(x86-64) Provides -------- erlang-provider_asn1: erlang-provider_asn1 Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2445457 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ruby, Haskell, fonts, Perl, Python, Ocaml, R, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-provider_asn1
FEDORA-2026-69a024277b (erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-69a024277b
FEDORA-2026-6b14252c01 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-6b14252c01 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-6b14252c01 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-69a024277b has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-69a024277b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-69a024277b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-6b14252c01 (erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-69a024277b (erlang-provider_asn1-0.4.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.