Fedora Releases: i hope for * Known Issues: readme.md in conf.d : required for context information regarding config. vosk-api-devel dependency: maintainer for vosk made a naming mistake for this package. matiwari is informed and promised to fix it. jars in SRPM: yes are deleted in %build This package is noarch and should be treated by koji as such later on. If you see an upcoming problem pls advise. Info: The package base was deployed successfully to real production system today. It's working \o/ Notes: - no big docs - no devel package required - pure java, with a sparkle of python for trayicons Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 170 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/pva- base/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 49460 bytes in 18 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Maven: [ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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. Java: [ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pva-base-0^20260310git0512938-1.fc42.noarch.rpm pva-base-0^20260310git0512938-1.fc42.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/tmp8x8xh604')] checks: 32, packages: 2 pva-base.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pva/conf.d/README.md pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ai.py pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chatgpt pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f5tts pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f5tts.py pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gsay pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msay pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary piper pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary psay pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary recall-pva pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary samsungtts pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary say pva-base.spec: W: no-%check-section pva-base.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0^20260310git0512938 ['0^20260310git0512938-1.fc42', '0^20260310git0512938-1'] pva-base.noarch: E: devel-dependency vosk-api-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings, 6 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pva-base". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Cyborgscode/Personal-Voice-Assistent/archive/refs/heads/main.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0674c3024a3d81233cfef6224a1ebb659d9f1c4171394bf13a4ce86e1cd2c314 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0674c3024a3d81233cfef6224a1ebb659d9f1c4171394bf13a4ce86e1cd2c314 Requires -------- pva-base (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/python3 config(pva-base) curl dbus-tools espeak ffmpeg gtts jakarta-activation jakarta-activation1 jakarta-mail jakarta-mail1 java-headless jna opencv-java openssl sox vosk-api-devel xdotool Provides -------- pva-base: application() application(PVA.desktop) application(pva-shutdown.desktop) config(pva-base) pva-base Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./pva-base-0_20260310git0512938-build/Personal-Voice-Assistent-main/lib/jna-5.18.1.jar ./pva-base-0_20260310git0512938-build/Personal-Voice-Assistent-main/lib/javax.mail-1.6.2.jar ./pva-base-0_20260310git0512938-build/Personal-Voice-Assistent-main/lib/javax.activation-1.2.0.jar ./pva-base-0_20260310git0512938-build/Personal-Voice-Assistent-main/lib/PLACEHOLDER- sqlite-jdbc-3.51.1.0.jar Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name pva-base --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-42-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, R, fonts, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Reproducible: Always Additional Information: Sponser: jskarvad
The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Found: Review Request for new Package: pva-base As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a build by typing [fedora-review-service-build]. --- 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.
Source: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mschwarz/pva/build/10207453/ Release: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mschwarz/pva/fedora-42-x86_64/10207453-pva-base/
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 42 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 42 on 2026-05-13. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '42'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 42 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.