https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303282 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #6) > Wait, I forgot that branching broke mock. Perhaps that is what you are > seeing? To make mock work again for F41 and Rawhide, you need: > > distribution-gpg-keys-1.105-1 > mock-core-configs-41.2-1 > > For F40, those are in: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4a6de3d12d > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-49a775adbe > > If that isn't the problem, can you share in what way mock doesn't work? I've upgraded both keys and moc-core-configs and ginally it works! Here is my formal 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 (GPLv2+). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No development files. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: I dod not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (1.3.1). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Noach package. [x]: %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]: 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: [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: gap-pkg-numericalsgps-1.3.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc-1.3.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-numericalsgps-1.3.1-1.fc41.src.rpm ========================================================================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpu1jjao43')] checks: 32, packages: 3 gap-pkg-numericalsgps.noarch: E: spelling-error ('semigroups', 'Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups') gap-pkg-numericalsgps.noarch: E: spelling-error ('semigroups', '%description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups') gap-pkg-numericalsgps.src: E: spelling-error ('semigroups', 'Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups') gap-pkg-numericalsgps.src: E: spelling-error ('semigroups', '%description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups') gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-numericalsgps.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-numericalsgps/GPL gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js =================================================================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 11 warnings, 12 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 2.2 s ================================================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 2 gap-pkg-numericalsgps.noarch: E: spelling-error ('semigroups', 'Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups') gap-pkg-numericalsgps.noarch: E: spelling-error ('semigroups', '%description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups') gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-numericalsgps.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-numericalsgps/GPL gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/NumericalSgps/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 11 warnings, 8 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gap-packages/numericalsgps/releases/download/v1.3.1/NumericalSgps-1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7fa1966f3b5b50638eaf952a48667fd1ce09034d9e5d042c3f78f6d8d3c01e10 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7fa1966f3b5b50638eaf952a48667fd1ce09034d9e5d042c3f78f6d8d3c01e10 Requires -------- gap-pkg-numericalsgps (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap-core gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap-pkg-numericalsgps Provides -------- gap-pkg-numericalsgps: gap-pkg-numericalsgps gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc: gap-pkg-numericalsgps-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2303282 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================ -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303282 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202303282%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
