Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjanasek/semacro/srpm-builds/10678407/semacro.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjanasek/semacro/srpm-builds/10678407/semacro-0.2.0-2.fc44.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147340327 Description: semacro parses the SELinux reference-policy macro library and provides quick lookup, search, and recursive expansion of interfaces, templates, and defines. It can substitute arguments, recursively expand nested calls into a tree of final policy rules, and output flat copy-paste-ready rules for use in .te policy files. Fedora Account System Username: jjanasek Note to Reviewers: This is my first Fedora package, and I am looking for a sponsor! My local mock build and rpmlint checks pass cleanly. There are two known false positives in the rpmlint output: spelling-error 'te': Refers to standard SELinux .te policy files. devel-dependency selinux-policy-devel: semacro intentionally parses macro files, so it explicitly requires the SELinux development headers to function.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10678574 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496845-semacro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10678574-semacro/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.
I have updated the package to address the issues flagged in the initial review and fully integrate the test suite. Key Updates: Updated Source0 to point to the upstream v0.2.0-2 release tag, which contains the complete tests/ directory. Added BuildRequires: selinux-policy-devel to satisfy dependencies for testing SELinux contexts. Configured %check to run the entire Pytest test suite, which now passes completely. Updated %prep to %autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}-2 to properly handle the extracted directory. Added %dir %{_libexecdir}/semacro to the %files section to fix the unowned directory issue. Updated Build Links: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjanasek/semacro/srpm-builds/10715715/semacro.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjanasek/semacro/srpm-builds/10715715/semacro-0.2.0-2.fc44.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147787620
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjanasek/semacro/srpm-builds/10793141/semacro.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjanasek/semacro/srpm-builds/10793141/semacro-0.2.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148480886 Description: semacro parses the SELinux reference-policy macro library and provides quick lookup, search, and recursive expansion of interfaces, templates, and defines. It can substitute arguments, recursively expand nested calls into a tree of final policy rules, and output flat copy-paste-ready rules for use in .te policy files. Fedora Account System Username: jjanasek My local mock build and rpmlint checks pass cleanly. There are two known false positives in the rpmlint output: spelling-error 'te': Refers to standard SELinux .te policy files. devel-dependency selinux-policy-devel: semacro intentionally parses macro files, so it explicitly requires the SELinux development headers to function. Changes since last review: Adopted %autorelease and %autochangelog (rpmautospec) Clean upstream versioning (v%{version} without distro release number) Direct install to %{_bindir}/semacro, dropped bash wrapper and libexecdir Added %py3_shebang_fix with -sP flags per Python packaging guidelines Shell completions use %{bash_completions_dir} / %{zsh_completions_dir} macros Dropped redundant Requires: python3 >= 3.9 Added VCS tag
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10793222 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496845-semacro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10793222-semacro/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/semacro/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.
Please update to 4.2.1 release https://github.com/pranlawate/semacro/releases/tag/v0.2.1
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjanasek/semacro/srpm-builds/10806642/semacro.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjanasek/semacro/srpm-builds/10806642/semacro-0.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148646381
Created attachment 2153378 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10793222 to 10806676
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10806676 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496845-semacro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10806676-semacro/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.
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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/plautrba/2496845-semacro/licensecheck.txt [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [-]: 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 [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. [X]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [X]: 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 25562 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: semacro-0.2.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm semacro-0.2.1-1.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/tmptyybyhow')] checks: 32, packages: 2 semacro.noarch: E: spelling-error ('te', '%description -l en_US te -> Te, Tue, tea') semacro.src: E: spelling-error ('te', '%description -l en_US te -> Te, Tue, tea') semacro.noarch: E: devel-dependency selinux-policy-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.3 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 semacro.noarch: E: spelling-error ('te', '%description -l en_US te -> ch') semacro.noarch: E: devel-dependency selinux-policy-devel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pranlawate/semacro/archive/v0.2.1/semacro-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34438ddf695cf6800d06af21a8cb3e8b5a6e89211d44c53761c3522ca7d5ce11 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34438ddf695cf6800d06af21a8cb3e8b5a6e89211d44c53761c3522ca7d5ce11 Requires -------- semacro (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 selinux-policy-devel Provides -------- semacro: semacro Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2496845 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, Python, Haskell, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/semacro Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-689278b5f8 (semacro-0.2.1-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-689278b5f8
FEDORA-2026-689278b5f8 (semacro-0.2.1-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.