Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/jonquil/jonquil.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/jonquil/jonquil-0.3.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: Jonquil is a JSON library for Fortran, built on top of TOML Fortran. It provides a simple API for parsing and serializing JSON data, with seamless interoperability with TOML data structures. Fedora Account System Username: lecris
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/jonquil/jonquil.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/jonquil/jonquil-0.3.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Fixed the pkgconfig file
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/jonquil/jonquil.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/jonquil/jonquil-0.3.2-1.fc45.src.rpm soversion glob was incorrect
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666290 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494942-jonquil/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666290-jonquil/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666293 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494942-jonquil/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666293-jonquil/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666296 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494942-jonquil/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666296-jonquil/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10767826 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494942-jonquil/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10767826-jonquil/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
it's hit stable, so hopefully it works now [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10773378 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494942-jonquil/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10773378-jonquil/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
[fedora-review-service-build] > it's hit stable, so hopefully it works now +1 day to wait for the compose
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ This is fine since this is Fortran, and gcc-gfortran is BRd. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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: [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* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License". 39 files have unknown license. License specified in README.md is apache-2.0 or MIT. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules, /usr/lib64/gfortran [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. [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]: 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 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 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 5497 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jonquil- devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jonquil-0.3.2-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm jonquil-devel-0.3.2-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm jonquil-0.3.2-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmpl1scmflg')] checks: 32, packages: 3 jonquil-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jonquil-debuginfo-0.3.2-1.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-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/tmphi9bq_d3')] 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) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 3 jonquil-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/toml-f/jonquil/archive/v0.3.2/jonquil-0.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 963f7f12128bc45dc3313df87dd4a3ba4b8ff20f38fdec2408b2a6391cf7aae2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 963f7f12128bc45dc3313df87dd4a3ba4b8ff20f38fdec2408b2a6391cf7aae2 Requires -------- jonquil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtoml-f.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) jonquil-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake(toml-f) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) jonquil libjonquil.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(toml-f) Provides -------- jonquil: jonquil jonquil(x86-64) libjonquil.so.0()(64bit) jonquil-devel: cmake(jonquil) jonquil-devel jonquil-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(jonquil) Package APPROVED for Fedora by jussilehtola. Add the missing arch in Requires before import.
Thank you for the review, Susi
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jonquil Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-f1a68f3765 (jonquil-0.3.2-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-f1a68f3765
FEDORA-2026-f1a68f3765 (jonquil-0.3.2-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Can you please build this for F44 as well?