https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735762 --- Comment #7 from MUNEENDRA (Broadcom) <muneendra.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6) > Yes, COPR is fine. > > - Builds failed for me because the archive downloaded has a different root > folder, so the folder should be changed in autosetup: > > %prep > %autosetup -n bsn-fc-txptd-%{commit} > > - Another issue is the %changelog entry: > > fc_txptd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1 > ['0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31', '0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67'] > > It must reflect the Version-Release from the header, so: > > *Mon Aug 12 2019 Muneendra <muneendra.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - > 0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67 > > > The rest of the SPEC is fine. > > > 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* > GNU General Public License (v2)". 9 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/bob/packaging/review/fc_txptd/review-fc_txptd/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [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. > [x]: 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 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]: 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 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 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). > [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fc_txptd > [?]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: fc_txptd-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31.x86_64.rpm > fc_txptd-debuginfo-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31.x86_64.rpm > fc_txptd-debugsource-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31.x86_64.rpm > fc_txptd-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31.src.rpm > fc_txptd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Fibrechannel -> Channelize > fc_txptd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail > over, fail-over, spillover > fc_txptd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1 > ['0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31', '0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67'] > fc_txptd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fctxpd > fc_txptd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fc -> cf, dc, f > fc_txptd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) txptd > fc_txptd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fc -> cf, > dc, f > fc_txptd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txptd > fc_txptd-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fc -> cf, dc, f > fc_txptd-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) txptd > fc_txptd-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fc -> > cf, dc, f > fc_txptd-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txptd > fc_txptd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Fibrechannel -> Channelize > fc_txptd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail over, > fail-over, spillover > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Hi Robert, I have made the changes and build the package for few distributions. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/muneendra/fctxpd/build/1001203/ And below is the links for the updated Spec and SRPM URL Spec URL: https://github.com/brocade/bsn-fc-txptd/blob/master/SPEC/fc_txptd.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/muneendra/fctxpd/srpm-builds/01001203/fc_txptd-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc28.src.rpm Regards, Muneendra. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
