Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/bluetooth/xfce-bluetooth/xfce-bluetooth.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/bluetooth/xfce-bluetooth/xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.fc22.src.rpm Description: A bluetooth manager for XFCE Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9844767
Ok, I tried fedora-review on it and the package built fine for rawhide but it couldn't be installed under mock for rpmlint review. I'm assuming it's one of the manual requires: bluez5 or dbus Is one of these not yet available? Also, should these requires be arch specific, i.e.: Requires: bluez5{?_isa} dbus%{?_isa} ???
bluez5 is obviously wrong, it should be bluez (without the digit). As it is currently version 5.x in all Fedoras, I wonder if we have to enforce the version as upstream writes.
Should it be: Requires: bluez >=5.0 instead?
Can you post an updated spec and SRPM? I can make the changes myself but it defeats the advantage of using fedora-review.
Thanks. Will fix it ASAP. Sorry for the delay. Please do not forget to change the bug status to ASSIGNED and set the fedora-review flag to '?' as the guideline says, when you would like to do the formal reviewer process.
Okay, I've changed bluez5 into bluez. Now, fedora-review works for me. Links are the same cause I doubt this really minor fix is worth a release bump. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/bluetooth/xfce-bluetooth/xfce-bluetooth.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/bluetooth/xfce-bluetooth/xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.fc22.src.rpm rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10407046 Still there is an issue with vala on epel7, so there is no package posssible at the moment. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224801#c7
epel7 build (with buildroot override for xfce4-vala): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10427329
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/1224800-xfce- bluetooth/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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). I think this is a false positive... [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.fc24.x86_64.rpm xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.fc24.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xfce-bluetooth-debuginfo-0-0.1.20150130git.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/build/fedora-review/1224800-xfce-bluetooth/srpm/xfce-bluetooth.spec 2015-07-26 14:18:23.744350698 -0500 +++ /home/build/fedora-review/1224800-xfce-bluetooth/srpm-unpacked/xfce-bluetooth.spec 2015-07-19 14:11:24.000000000 -0500 @@ -52,3 +52,2 @@ * Mon May 25 2015 Raphael Groner <projects.rg> - 0-0.1.20150130git - initial - Requires -------- xfce-bluetooth (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bluez dbus libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libxfce4ui-1.so.0()(64bit) libxfce4util.so.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- xfce-bluetooth: xfce-bluetooth xfce-bluetooth(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ncopa/xfce-bluetooth/archive/d3f76b2dc33f43984b1993083d42fa694b735664/xfce-bluetooth-d3f76b2dc33f43984b1993083d42fa694b735664.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e37120f1e1ebd0909aa4671c146cf9c16b7d846dfd0a6bc713329414d534837c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e37120f1e1ebd0909aa4671c146cf9c16b7d846dfd0a6bc713329414d534837c Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1224800 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 *** APPROVED ***
Thanks for the review! Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Strange error that I do not understand. Why is there no python in your system? Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/build/fedora-review/1224800-xfce-bluetooth/srpm/xfce-bluetooth.spec 2015-07-26 14:18:23.744350698 -0500 +++ /home/build/fedora-review/1224800-xfce-bluetooth/srpm-unpacked/xfce-bluetooth.spec 2015-07-19 14:11:24.000000000 -0500 @@ -52,3 +52,2 @@ * Mon May 25 2015 Raphael Groner <projects.rg> - 0-0.1.20150130git - initial - This is because I forgot to update the SRPM as well with corrected changelog. Fixed.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xfce-bluetooth Short Description: A simple bluetooth manager for Xfce Upstream URL: https://github.com/ncopa/xfce-bluetooth Owners: raphgro Branches: f23 f22 epel7 InitialCC:
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #9) > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > Strange error that I do not understand. Why is there no python in your > system? Definitely have python, I guess it's just a fedora review bug.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.fc22
xfce4-vala-4.10.3-9.el7, xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7278/xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.el7,xfce4-vala-4.10.3-9.el7
Package xfce4-vala-4.10.3-9.el7, xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.el7: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing xfce4-vala-4.10.3-9.el7 xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.el7' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7278/xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.el7,xfce4-vala-4.10.3-9.el7 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
xfce4-vala-4.10.3-9.el7, xfce-bluetooth-0-0.1.20150130git.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.3.20150130git.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14609
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.3.20150130git.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7851
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14649
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14689
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7872
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update xfce-bluetooth'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7872
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update xfce-bluetooth'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14689
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update xfce-bluetooth'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14649
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
xfce-bluetooth-0-0.4.20150130git.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.