https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197 --- Comment #23 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> --- > copr does not use koji at all. ;) Scratch builds in koji are similar to copr builds with the 'network access' turned off, but they aren't the exact same systems doing the building. Whoops, yes, I misspoke. What I meant to say was, both use *mock* behind the scenes and therefore are equally suitable for scratch builds. > No sure why it wants to write .bbk into lib64. Might need to invent a patch to move it into share or generate into user's home. That might be a good idea, since it seems like gnushogi expects to be able to write out the book files while it's running. Ideally, I guess it should be able to read them from both /usr/share and somewhere under /home? I'd encourage you to try to improve this, but this isn't a blocker for review purposes. However... one final thing that is a blocker: > %{_libdir}/%{name}/gnushogi.tbk > %{_libdir}/%{name}/gnushogi.bbk Should just be: > %{_libdir}/%{name} The former causes %{_libdir}/gnushogi to be a directory not owned by any package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "GPL (v1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 21 files have unknown license. (Note: this is weird but some of the Makefiles have GPL+ headers instead of GPLv3+ headers... but they don't actually get built into the package, so I think the GPLv3+ license tag is fine). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gnushogi [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gnushogi [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in gnushogi [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. [-]: 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 81920 bytes in 10 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]: 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: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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 gnushogi-debuginfo , gnushogi-debugsource [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnushogi-1.5-0.3.git5bb0b5b.fc28.x86_64.rpm gnushogi-debuginfo-1.5-0.3.git5bb0b5b.fc28.x86_64.rpm gnushogi-debugsource-1.5-0.3.git5bb0b5b.fc28.x86_64.rpm gnushogi-1.5-0.3.git5bb0b5b.fc28.src.rpm gnushogi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Shogi -> Hoggish gnushogi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shogi -> hoggish gnushogi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end gnushogi.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gnushogi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnuminishogi gnushogi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) gnushogi-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation gnushogi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Shogi -> Hoggish gnushogi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shogi -> hoggish gnushogi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gnushogi-debuginfo-1.5-0.3.git5bb0b5b.fc28.x86_64.rpm gnushogi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory gnushogi-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnushogi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> gnushogi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) gnushogi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Shogi -> Hoggish gnushogi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shogi -> hoggish gnushogi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end gnushogi.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnushogi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> gnushogi.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gnushogi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnuminishogi gnushogi-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnushogi <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> gnushogi-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- gnushogi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnushogi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh info libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gnushogi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gnushogi-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gnushogi-debuginfo gnushogi-debuginfo(x86-64) gnushogi: gnushogi gnushogi(x86-64) gnushogi-debugsource: gnushogi-debugsource gnushogi-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnushogi.git/snapshot/gnushogi-5bb0b5b2f6953b3250e965c7ecaf108215751a74.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d3e4c0d7ce29cd0c18bcd2020a7330dd7d4b15b18b08ec493fffa13cc92a5f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3d3e4c0d7ce29cd0c18bcd2020a7330dd7d4b15b18b08ec493fffa13cc92a5f9 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n gnushogi -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
