https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044700 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks fine, APPROVED note: might want to file a bug against the forge macros, you follow this: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control but the version/release generated doesn't follow the new guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tfdocgen See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names => this is fine, the package needs to be unretired ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/dcavalca/repo/results/default/tfdocgen-1.00-1.20220124gita9d4bf8.fc36/review- tfdocgen/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. [-]: 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 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: 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 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. => plus minus rpmautospec [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/debrouxl/tfdocgen/archive/a9d4bf89b9a54cdbddb970b3079d802a34d69cdb/tfdocgen-a9d4bf89b9a54cdbddb970b3079d802a34d69cdb.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f760bf06c5b450508b6b3ff785cf58d4bdfbbf9d32f92cc152bb3998deb747f1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f760bf06c5b450508b6b3ff785cf58d4bdfbbf9d32f92cc152bb3998deb747f1 Requires -------- tfdocgen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tfdocgen-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tfdocgen-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tfdocgen: tfdocgen tfdocgen(aarch-64) tfdocgen-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tfdocgen-debuginfo tfdocgen-debuginfo(aarch-64) tfdocgen-debugsource: tfdocgen-debugsource tfdocgen-debugsource(aarch-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/dcavalca/repo/results/default/tfdocgen-1.00-1.20220124gita9d4bf8.fc36/tfdocgen.spec 2022-01-24 18:49:26.000000000 -0800 +++ /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/dcavalca/repo/results/default/tfdocgen-1.00-1.20220124gita9d4bf8.fc36/review-tfdocgen/srpm-unpacked/tfdocgen.spec 2022-01-24 18:23:23.000000000 -0800 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl https://github.com/debrouxl/tfdocgen %global commit a9d4bf89b9a54cdbddb970b3079d802a34d69cdb @@ -43,3 +52,60 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Mon Jan 24 2022 Davide Cavalca <dcavalca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 1:1.00-1 +- Switch to the new upsteam + +* Mon Jan 24 2022 Davide Cavalca <dcavalca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 20150202git-3 +- Misc specfile fixes + +* Fri Jul 23 2021 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-15 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild + +* Wed Jan 27 2021 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-14 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild + +* Wed Jul 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-13 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild + +* Fri Jan 31 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-12 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sat Jul 27 2019 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-11 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sun Feb 03 2019 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-10 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sat Jul 14 2018 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-9 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild + +* Fri Feb 09 2018 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-8 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Mass_Rebuild + +* Thu Aug 03 2017 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-7 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Binutils_Mass_Rebuild + +* Thu Jul 27 2017 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-6 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sat Feb 11 2017 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-5 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Mass_Rebuild + +* Fri Feb 05 2016 Fedora Release Engineering <releng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-4 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild + +* Fri Jun 19 2015 Fedora Release Engineering <rel-eng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 20150202git-3 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild + +* Mon Feb 9 2015 'Ben Rosser' <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> 20150202git-2 +- Added license tag, added an extra file to doc. +- Changed tfdocgen man page to use a wildcard encoding. + +* Mon Feb 2 2015 'Ben Rosser' <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> 20150202git-1 +- Bumped changelog and checkout date. + +* Fri Oct 11 2013 'Ben Rosser' <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> 20131011git-1 +- Updated to latest checkout from git repository + +* Wed Jul 11 2012 'Ben Rosser' <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> 20120711git-1 +- Initial version of the package + AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: tfdocgen-a9d4bf89b9a54cdbddb970b3079d802a34d69cdb/trunk/configure.ac:23 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -p --name tfdocgen Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Java, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Python, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044700 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
