Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https:/trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent.spec SRPM URL: https:/trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent-0.72.1-1.fc45.src.rpm Reproducible: Always
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
How to use pi-coding agent is written up here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/AI-ML#pi-coding-agent
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent-0.78.1-1.fc45.src.rpm Upstream location changed, this is the latest.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10569915 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2464801-pi-coding-agent/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10569915-pi-coding-agent/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent-0.79.4-1.fc45.src.rpm Updated to latest.
At least two rpmlint reports should be addressed: Number 1: The node modules bundle contains pre-built binaries. I believe this will require that the package dist-git includes a script that fetches the node_modules, strips them of binaries, and archives the result. pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib $ file node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-tui/native/*/*/*/* node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-tui/native/darwin/prebuilds/darwin-arm64/darwin-modifiers.node: Mach-O 64-bit arm64 bundle, flags:<NOUNDEFS|DYLDLINK|TWOLEVEL> node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-tui/native/darwin/prebuilds/darwin-x64/darwin-modifiers.node: Mach-O 64-bit x86_64 bundle, flags:<NOUNDEFS|DYLDLINK|TWOLEVEL> node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-tui/native/win32/prebuilds/win32-arm64/win32-console-mode.node: PE32+ executable for MS Windows 6.02 (DLL), ARM64, 3 sections node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-tui/native/win32/prebuilds/win32-x64/win32-console-mode.node: PE32+ executable for MS Windows 6.00 (DLL), x86-64, 3 sections Number 2: pi-coding-agent.spec: W: no-%check-section The project site indicates that a test suite exists: "./test.sh # Run tests (skips LLM-dependent tests without API keys)". That should be run in the %check section. If that's not possible, the package should at least document why it isn't possible.
...wasm needs to be stripped, as well: node_modules_prod/@silvia-odwyer/photon-node/photon_rs_bg.wasm
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent-0.79.9-1.fc45.src.rpm > file node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-tui/native/*/*/*/* > ...wasm needs to be stripped, as well: # remove some binaries rm -rf node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-tui/native rm -f node_modules_prod/@silvia-odwyer/photon-node/photon_rs_bg.wasm > The project site indicates that a test suite exists: "./test.sh Trying, shows immediate failure needing vitest. https://www.npmjs.com/package/vitest installing vitest during the build would not be possible. ./test.sh Moved auth.json to backup Running tests without API keys... > pi-monorepo.3 test > npm run test --workspaces --if-present > @earendil-works/pi-agent-core.9 test > vitest --run sh: line 1: vitest: command not found
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10620674 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2464801-pi-coding-agent/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10620674-pi-coding-agent/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-1.fc45.src.rpm Update to latest
Created attachment 2147696 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10620674 to 10681809
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10681809 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2464801-pi-coding-agent/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10681809-pi-coding-agent/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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.
In the spec file: > ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64 Should that be "ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches} noarch"? > # npn i -g license-checker Looks like a typo. Should be "npm"? > SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it Please ask upstream to include their license. > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license Unlicense appears in @earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-bundled-licenses.txt. It looks like that applies to tweetnacl in the examples directory, so it's part of the src.rpm but not the binary rpm. I'm unclear on whether the license field should include this one. > Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled librarieswith Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. nodejs should "automatically adds bundled provides in the form bundled(<bundled_module_name>) = <bundled_module_version> to identify bundled modules" but that isn't happening in this package. I can't find the automatic generator at the moment, but I wonder if it's only scanning one level deep under the node site library. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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 LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/gmessmer/git/pi- coding-agent/review-pi-coding-agent/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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* MIT License", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "BSD 0-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 0-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "BSD 0-Clause License and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 0-Clause License". 17339 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/review-pi-coding- agent/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30567 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: /home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/review-pi- coding-agent/srpm-unpacked/pi-coding-agent.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-1.fc45.noarch.rpm pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-1.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/tmp7yn8nfkn')] checks: 32, packages: 2 pi-coding-agent.noarch: E: spelling-error ('npm', '%description -l en_US npm -> bpm, pm, rpm') pi-coding-agent.noarch: E: spelling-error ('openclaw', '%description -l en_US openclaw -> open claw, open-claw, opencast') pi-coding-agent.src: E: spelling-error ('npm', '%description -l en_US npm -> bpm, pm, rpm') pi-coding-agent.src: E: spelling-error ('openclaw', '%description -l en_US openclaw -> open claw, open-claw, opencast') pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pi pi-coding-agent.spec: W: no-%check-section pi-coding-agent.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3.tgz pi-coding-agent.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: @earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-nm-prod.tgz pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/pi-coding-agent/README.md /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/README.md:/usr/share/doc/pi-coding-agent/README.md pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-ai/dist/cli.d.ts /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/dist/bun/cli.d.ts:/usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/dist/cli.d.ts pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-agent-core/dist/harness/utils/truncate.d.ts /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/dist/core/tools/truncate.d.ts 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings, 31227 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 17.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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 pi-coding-agent.noarch: E: spelling-error ('npm', '%description -l en_US npm -> bpm, pm, rpm') pi-coding-agent.noarch: E: spelling-error ('openclaw', '%description -l en_US openclaw -> open claw, open-claw, opencast') pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pi pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/pi-coding-agent/README.md /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/README.md:/usr/share/doc/pi-coding-agent/README.md pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-ai/dist/cli.d.ts /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/dist/bun/cli.d.ts:/usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/dist/cli.d.ts pi-coding-agent.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/node_modules_prod/@earendil-works/pi-agent-core/dist/harness/utils/truncate.d.ts /usr/lib/node_modules/@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent/dist/core/tools/truncate.d.ts 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 31223 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 14.7 s Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3.tgz as upstream file:///home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 155c5800134cb8df6c47adb3eab56415e8fa7746e0b1cba6687134137c451d90 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 155c5800134cb8df6c47adb3eab56415e8fa7746e0b1cba6687134137c451d90 Using local file /home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/@earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-nm-prod.tgz as upstream file:///home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/@earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-nm-prod.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93148bcc447d2ec6c481b6b8bf0f1fa155130e929837802267024f31b61dd89f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93148bcc447d2ec6c481b6b8bf0f1fa155130e929837802267024f31b61dd89f Using local file /home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/@earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-bundled-licenses.txt as upstream file:///home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/@earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-bundled-licenses.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6baceca1b120ca6db1d55c7b47fd5829677a9df2b64432bf5182c330a86d9f4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6baceca1b120ca6db1d55c7b47fd5829677a9df2b64432bf5182c330a86d9f4 Using local file /home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/license-checker.txt as upstream file:///home/gmessmer/git/pi-coding-agent/license-checker.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48e9b24e017b43130a33bff2de0df96b6d91d9e616cbf001366206fd5eb56ebc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d74754ad096cfcfcaf34d5c80248017aa76c00374adc4f5f5c14e1c6152d0df6 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- pi-coding-agent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/node nodejs Provides -------- pi-coding-agent: pi-coding-agent Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n pi-coding-agent Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, R, fonts, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> Unlicense appears in @earendil-works-pi-coding-agent-0.80.3-bundled-licenses.txt. It looks like that applies to tweetnacl in the examples directory, so it's part of the src.rpm but not the binary rpm. I'm unclear on whether the license field should include this one. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field The License field covers the binary rpm, so Unlicense does not need to appear in this field.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pi-coding-agent Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
>> SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it > Please ask upstream to include their license. I did here https://github.com/earendil-works/pi/issues/4215
> ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64 Should that be "ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches} noarch"? aarch64 is a stretch, it is included because ollama has aarch64 support and that is maintained by someone else.
I guess I'm unsure why ollama would influence ExclusiveArch. pi can connect to external services using "/login", right?