https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Bug ID: 1119197 Summary: Review Request: gnushogi - Shogi (Japanese Chess) AI engine Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aflyhorse@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56671522/gnushogi.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56671522/gnushogi-20140714git29cc00c-1.f...
Description: GNU shogi is a program that plays shogi, the Japanese version of chess, against a human (or computer) opponent. GNU Shogi proper is only the AI engine, and you will likely want to use a GUI frontend (XBoard, for example) to be more comfortable. (This is a snapshot from git version, which has decent autotools support and recognize xboard protocol)
Fedora Account System Username: aflyhorse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #1 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Ouch, I forgot this etiquette: this is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i@cicku.me Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #2 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Following the advice of upstream maintainer (Thanks Yann) I made some update to the package. The links in the first post were unlinked and here is the new version:
Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56671522/gnushogi.spec SRPM URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56671522/gnushogi-1.4.2%2B-1.20140714git...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- The second spec is even worse than the initial submitted one.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #4 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Because I seperated my patch from the original git snapshot.
My patch involved tweaking the configure.ac, thus cause a full "autoreconf" in %prep stage and pulled in a long list of build dependency. The build dependency list is generated via auto-buildrequires (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/auto-buildrequires)
Koji Build output: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7142190 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7142198
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- (In reply to Chen Chen from comment #4)
Because I seperated my patch from the original git snapshot.
You should use a released tarball from the official website, then rebase your patch. No comments around there, I don't know where you got the sources.
Your source0 contains no URL and as a result it's untrusted. Please use the full link.
My patch involved tweaking the configure.ac, thus cause a full "autoreconf" in %prep stage and pulled in a long list of build dependency. The build dependency list is generated via auto-buildrequires (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/auto-buildrequires)
That tool is a crap nowadays, and that long list generated is also a crap. You need to know what gnushogi needs for the building, not let tool teach you how to find the dependencies. Don't be sloppy.
Also your patch only invokes the check of the texinfo and it doesn't make sense to me that such a horrendous list of BRs should be pulled in, it's wrong. Please read carefully:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Koji Build output: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7142190 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7142198
Successful build indicates nothing as the package you sent here doesn't match the guideline.
And your name also caught my eyes as well, just a note to ensure that please use your real name here if possible in most cases.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #6 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
(In reply to Chen Chen from comment #4)
Because I seperated my patch from the original git snapshot.
You should use a released tarball from the official website, then rebase your patch. No comments around there, I don't know where you got the sources.
Your source0 contains no URL and as a result it's untrusted. Please use the full link.
I don't think use the released tarball is a good idea: a) It doesn't talk to modern xboard, but use an outdated xshogi as GUI. xshogi is a years old folk of xboard. b) The tarball also needs "autoreconf" on f20. The autotoolchain in tarball is too old and doesn't honor "make install DESTDIR="
I've updated the spec and added source in comments according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Us...
Also your patch only invokes the check of the texinfo and it doesn't make sense to me that such a horrendous list of BRs should be pulled in, it's wrong. Please read carefully:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Thanks for the link. I've eliminated them in my 3rd submission in attachment.
And your name also caught my eyes as well, just a note to ensure that please use your real name here if possible in most cases.
This is my real name. I can email you a photocopy of my passport if you want.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #7 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Created attachment 918089 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=918089&action=edit 3rd submit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #918089|3rd submit |gnushogi.spec (3rd submit) description| |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #8 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Created attachment 918361 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=918361&action=edit SRPM (3rd submit)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7142468
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #918089|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #9 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Created attachment 918647 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=918647&action=edit gnushogi.spec
After some struggle I decided to use the released tarball as initial package. So the package is splitted into two: gnushogi and xshogi.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7156120
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #10 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Created attachment 918648 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=918648&action=edit gnushogi-1.4.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #11 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Created attachment 918649 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=918649&action=edit xshogi.spec
The xshogi is the X-11 front-end of GNU Shogi.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7156126
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #918361|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #12 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Created attachment 918650 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=918650&action=edit xshogi-1.4.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Yann Dirson ydirson@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ydirson@free.fr
--- Comment #13 from Yann Dirson ydirson@free.fr --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
You need to know what gnushogi needs for the building, not let tool teach you how to find the dependencies. Don't be sloppy.
You can also get a look at the build-deps I used for the debian package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aflyhorse@hotmail.com, | |rosser.bjr@gmail.com Blocks| |1364745 (FE-GAMESIG) Flags| |needinfo?(aflyhorse@hotmail | |.com)
--- Comment #14 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- I'm sorry, I must have missed this when I went through looking for games tickets stuck in the review queue!
It has been several years, but please reply if you are still interested in this submission, and I'd be willing to review.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364745 [Bug 1364745] Games SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(aflyhorse@hotmail | |.com) |
--- Comment #15 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- (In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #14)
It has been several years, but please reply if you are still interested in this submission, and I'd be willing to review.
Hi Ben,
I'm still willing to package this game. Please let me have some time to catch up with the latest development and prepare a new SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #16 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com ---
I'm still willing to package this game. Please let me have some time to catch up with the latest development and prepare a new SRPM.
Great to hear you are still interested! Just let me know when the package is ready.
Once the time comes, I can also sponsor you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #17 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- I again decided to package the latest code (since it talks with xboard). Here are the files:
SPEC: https://gist.github.com/aflyhorse/dc5f37bd72008315ac323f66b88ead1e
(RAW)https://gist.github.com/aflyhorse/dc5f37bd72008315ac323f66b88ead1e/raw/7024d...
SRPM: http://www.lunes.faith/SRPMS/gnushogi-1.5pre-1.git5bb0b5b.fc26.src.rpm
Built Binaries: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/aflyhorse/gnushogi
All suggestions and fixes are welcome.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rosser.bjr@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Great! I have a few comments just based off of reading the spec.
Version: 1.5pre Release: 1.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Fedora's Versioning guidelines say that to indicate a pre-release version, you should use the expected version number as the Version tag and put a leading "0." in the release tag. That is, something like this:
Version: 1.5 Release: 0.1.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Then if and when upstream releases 1.5, you can remove the trailing 0 and rpm will see your package as an update.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Prerelease_versions
# The source of this package was pulled from upstreams's vcs.
While this is okay to do when necessary, it's always better to use an actual SourceURL if possible. After poking around the Savannah cgit interface I believe you can use the following SourceURL:
Source0: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnushogi.git/snapshot/gnushogi-%%7Bcommit%...
In which case, you'll need to modify the "setup" macro appropriately:
%setup -qn %{name}-%{commit}
And then you need to add the invocation of autogen.sh to the spec as well, along with the necessary BuildRequires on autoconf/automake/texinfo as well.
make %{?_smp_mflags}
While this works fine, it is recommended to replace this with the relatively new "%make_build" macro.
%{__rm} -f %{buildroot}%{_infodir}/dir
This is frowned upon. You should just use "rm":
"Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is acceptable."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
Requires: ncurses-libs
This explicit dependency is probably unnecessary. RPM can generally figure out C/C++ library dependencies. You can check to make sure by running "rpm -qpR" over a spec to see the dependencies, like so:
[bjr@rannoch Downloads]$ rpm -qpR /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/gnushogi-1.5pre-1.git5bb0b5b.fc28.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) ...
So, rpm was able to find the libncurses dependency on it's own.
In addition, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Texinfo you need to add the Requires for "info" for the post and preun triggers.
Requires(post): info Requires(preun): info
You might want to consider adding a weak dependency on xboard. You can read more about them here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies
Otherwise the spec looks fine to me. I'll do a more detailed run through over the next few days and let you know if I find anything else.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #19 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- SPEC updated as per your suggestion.
SPEC (Same link, you can read the change in gist): https://gist.github.com/aflyhorse/dc5f37bd72008315ac323f66b88ead1e
SRPM: https://www.lunes.faith/SRPMS/gnushogi-1.5-0.2.git5bb0b5b.fc26.src.rpm
Built Binaries (Same link): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/aflyhorse/gnushogi
BTW, should I still upload to koji, or copr is OK?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #20 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- copr is fine for scratch builds these days (it uses Koji behind the scenes).
Just a note, generally it's good to run "rpmlint" over your package before uploading (e.g. "rpmlint [rpm]"). It frequently produces spurious warnings that can safely be ignored (like "spelling errors"), but it can also detect actual problems. In this instance it found a few complaints.
On a related note, I'd encourage you to use the template format of:
Spec URL: SRPM URL:
when posting changes in a review ticket-- this makes it possible for the automated "fedora-review" tool to run properly. You can try running this yourself over a review ticket if you have mock installed:
$ dnf install fedora-review $ fedora-review -b [bugzilla ID] -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
This will try to fetch the spec and SRPM from bugzilla and automatically build and run some checks over them. (fedora-review can also be given files locally, but that adds a step for the reviewer of having to download the tickets).
Anyway, here are a few problems pointed out by rpmlint:
gnushogi.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C GNU shogi is a program that plays shogi, the Japanese version of chess, against a human (or computer) opponent. gnushogi.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C GNU Shogi proper is only the AI engine, and you will likely want to use a GUI frontend (XBoard, for example) to be more comfortable.
The lines in %description should be wrapped to 80 characters.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description
gnushogi.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.0.2.git5bb0b5b ['1.5-0.2.git5bb0b5b.fc28', '1.5-0.2.git5bb0b5b']
Looks like you just made a small typo here, though it looks like you fixed it in the spec after building the SRPM. (In general, you should make sure that the version of the spec you upload is the same as the one you use to build the SRPM. For simple things like this it doesn't really matter, but it's just generally good practice).
gnushogi.x86_64: E: shell-syntax-error-in-%post gnushogi.x86_64: E: shell-syntax-error-in-%preun
You seem to be missing "; then" after your conditionals:
https://gist.github.com/aflyhorse/dc5f37bd72008315ac323f66b88ead1e#file-gnus...
https://gist.github.com/aflyhorse/dc5f37bd72008315ac323f66b88ead1e#file-gnus...
When I attempted to install the RPM, I got similar errors from dnf.
In addition, I then tried to run gnushogi. It seems it wants to write out it's .bbk file in /usr/lib64/gnushogi, which is not user-writable. Looking at the documentation (doc/BOOKFILES), I believe "make -C gnushogi gnushogi.bbk" should be run under %build, in order to pre-compile the binary book file.
Please fix the above, and I'll be more than happy to approve the package and sponsor you-- everything else looks good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #21 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Just a small drive by comment:
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #20)
copr is fine for scratch builds these days (it uses Koji behind the scenes).
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. Just wanted to note it... carry on.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #22 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Spec URL: https://github.com/aflyhorse/gnushogi-spec/raw/master/gnushogi.spec SRPM URL: https://www.lunes.faith/SRPMS/gnushogi-1.5-0.3.git5bb0b5b.fc26.src.rpm
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. BTW. Moved to Github in order to get a permanent direct link.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #23 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com ---
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_Owner...
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-5bb0b5b2f69... : 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #24 from Chen Chen aflyhorse@hotmail.com --- Spec URL: https://github.com/aflyhorse/gnushogi-spec/raw/master/gnushogi.spec SRPM URL: https://www.lunes.faith/SRPMS/gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.fc26.src.rpm Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24862124
I need some time to prepare for lib patch. spec is modified as requested. As this is probably the final commitment, package is also submitted on koji.
Online diff: https://github.com/aflyhorse/gnushogi-spec/commit/ce0bcae2da6118ea036ca57569...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #25 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Great, package is approved!
I have also gone ahead and sponsored you into packagers. If you have any future questions about packaging feel free to send me an email, or ask me on IRC (my username in Fedora IRC channels is TC01).
You can now follow the remaining steps in this wiki article to get gnushogi imported and built:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_P...
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #26 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnushogi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3e2d391d65
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4cf89ccb28
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3e2d391d65
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4cf89ccb28
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-05-16 09:06:13
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119197
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gnushogi-1.5-0.4.git5bb0b5b.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla