https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123242
--- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me ---
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
The specfile uses `BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libssl)` which, looking at the root/build logs, pulls in openssl-devel 1:3.0.5-2 and the final Requires shows `libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)`.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps
These should be fixed in the updated specfile
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
There are no development files.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
This is by purpose, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
[!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing?
I'm not sure what pulls in the Perl dependency, xephem-data is a noarch package with just data files...
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xephem- data
Fixed.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
See the ExcludeArch explanation.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Need to check with upstream why tests are failing.
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff).
Fixed.
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/xephem/xephem.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/xephem/xephem-4.1.0%5e20221006b7bfc6e-1.fc38...