[Bug 2331669] New: Review Request: sc-im-rpm packege for vim-like spreadsheet calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Bug ID: 2331669 Summary: Review Request: sc-im-rpm packege for vim-like spreadsheet calculator Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tjuhasz@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126715973 Description: RPM package for sc-im, Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. Fedora Account System Username: tjuhasz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected:
Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>
Found:
Review Request: sc-im-rpm packege for vim-like spreadsheet calculator
As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a build by typing [fedora-review-service-build].
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: sc-im-rpm |Review Request: sc-im - rpm |packege for vim-like |packege for vim-like |spreadsheet calculator |spreadsheet calculator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #2 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:
- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5977/126715977/sc-im-0.8.4-2.... Description: RPM package for sc-im, Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. Koji: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5977/126715977/sc-im-0.8.4-2.... Fedora Account System Username: tjuhasz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #4 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #5 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5977/126715977/sc-im-0.8.4-2.... Description: RPM package for sc-im, Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. Koji: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5977/126715977/sc-im-0.8.4-2.... Fedora Account System Username: tjuhasz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #6 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5977/126715977/sc-im-0.8.4-2....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #7 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/andmarti | |1424/sc-im
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8376972 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file y2l.license is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Not a valid SPDX expression 'https://github.com/andmarti1424/sc-im/blob/freeze/LICENSE'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8376947 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file y2l.license is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Not a valid SPDX expression 'https://github.com/andmarti1424/sc-im/blob/freeze/LICENSE'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8376973 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file y2l.license is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Not a valid SPDX expression 'https://github.com/andmarti1424/sc-im/blob/freeze/LICENSE'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8376975 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file y2l.license is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Not a valid SPDX expression 'https://github.com/andmarti1424/sc-im/blob/freeze/LICENSE'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |jstanek@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jstanek@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #12 from Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com --- Preliminary review done over videocall, update should be incoming.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2380/126752380/sc-im-0.8.4-2.... Description: RPM package for sc-im, Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. Koji: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5977/126715977/sc-im-0.8.4-2.... Fedora Account System Username: tjuhasz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #13 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2380/126752380/sc-im-0.8.4-2....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8383784 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file y2l.license is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Not a valid SPDX expression 'https://github.com/andmarti1424/sc-im/blob/freeze/LICENSE'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vondruch@redhat.com
--- Comment #15 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- Could you please explore, if there is a chance to execute the test suite in `%check` section? If not, it would still be valuable to record this information in .spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6155/126756155/sc-im-0.8.4-3.... Description: RPM package for sc-im, Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. Koji: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5977/126715977/sc-im-0.8.4-2.... Fedora Account System Username: tjuhasz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #16 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- SPEC URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6155/126756155/sc-im-0.8.4-3....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2062183 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2062183&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8383784 to 8384723
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8384723 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #19 from Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com --- Tomas, I see the changes in the spec file; however, a comment also left here about what's changed/what have you done would be appreciated. ;-)
Could you please explore, if there is a chance to execute the test suite in `%check` section? If not, it would still be valuable to record this information in .spec file.
On my machine (raw, out-of package compilation), all tests pass except test7.sh. So there is the possibility to rename the known-failing test (i.e. mv test7.sh test7.sh.known-fail) and run the rest. That would at least tell us if anything new broke in further updates.
Additionally, I do not think all the listed dependencies are build-time (BuildRequires). At least the xclip and gnuplot ones seems like run-time dependencies, and a weak/optional ones (IOW, sc-im would run fine if gnuplot or xclip are missing). So I would recommend changing them to `Recommends: gnuplot` and `Recommends: xclip`. See https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/dependencies.html and https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/more_dependencies.html on what the various dependecy specifiers mean.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #20 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- Changes made:
-changed runtime-dependencies (gnuplot, xclip) from BuildRequires to Recommended -after starting investigation of test suite issues added current explanation for why they aren't included
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #21 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- SPEC URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/tree... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3537/126793537/sc-im-0.8.4-3....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2062263 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2062263&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8384723 to 8389644
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8389644 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #24 from Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com --- Now the spec file looks good for me, let's start with the review proper! 🎉
The URL for the spec file points to the HTML rendering, not the file itself. Let me try to provide better URLs so that automated tools can better find it.
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/plai... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3537/126793537/sc-im-0.8.4-3....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #25 from Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com --- Issues highlighted at the top; full review log below.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/sc-im
Add `%dir %{_datadir}/sc-im` line in %files – you have to own the directory as well.
sc-im.spec:53: W: macro-in-comment %check
RPM expands macros even in (shell) comments; double the % sign: `%%check`.
sc-im.src: E: description-line-too-long Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. sc-im.src: E: description-line-too-long sc-im is based on sc, whose original authors are James Gosling and Mark Weiser, and mods were later added by Chuck Martin.
Apparently, the %description text should be re-flown to 80-character line limit. Hint: Since I've seen you using nvim, the `gq` motion should do that for you. ;-) (:help gq).
---
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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "BSD 4-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 167 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jstanek/redhat/fedora/review/2331669-sc-im/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/sc-im [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. [?]: 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. [?]: 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 35176 bytes in 8 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 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: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [-]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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 ------- Checking: sc-im-0.8.4-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm sc-im-0.8.4-3.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpu_s68dbe')] checks: 32, packages: 2
sc-im.src: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', 'Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.src: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', '%description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', 'Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', '%description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scopen sc-im.spec:53: W: macro-in-comment %check sc-im.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sc-im/y2l.readme sc-im.src: E: description-line-too-long Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. sc-im.src: E: description-line-too-long sc-im is based on sc, whose original authors are James Gosling and Mark Weiser, and mods were later added by Chuck Martin. sc-im.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. sc-im.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long sc-im is based on sc, whose original authors are James Gosling and Mark Weiser, and mods were later added by Chuck Martin. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- sc-im (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libxlsreader.so.8()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- sc-im: sc-im sc-im(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2331669 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, R, fonts, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
---
Side note: I'm leaving for my Xmas time off today; feel free to hunt down someone else to finish the review. Otherwise, see you in the new year!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/plai... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9725/126799725/sc-im-0.8.4-3.... Description: RPM package for sc-im, Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. Koji: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5977/126715977/sc-im-0.8.4-2.... Fedora Account System Username: tjuhasz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #26 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- Thank you for your help! Have a great christmas.
Changes made: - added sc-im directory to files - added extra % check - adjusted the description length to 80 max
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/tjuhasz/sc-im/sc-im.git/plai... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9725/126799725/sc-im-0.8.4-3....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2062300 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2062300&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8389644 to 8390310
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8390310 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #29 from Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com --- Hello again after the Xmas holidays! The latest URLs seems to have expired, so trying to use the latest build from your COPR.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/sc-im/fedora-rawh... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/sc-im/fedora-rawh...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #30 from Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com --- Oh the joys of updated gcc… the build now fails with few incompatible type errors:
format.c: In function ‘engformat’: format.c:571:21: warning: conflicting types for built-in function ‘pow’; expected ‘double(double, double)’ [-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch] 571 | double engmant, pow(), engabs, engexp; | ^~~ format.c:133:1: note: ‘pow’ is declared in header ‘<math.h>’ 132 | #include "xmalloc.h" +++ |+#include <math.h> 133 | format.c:604:31: error: too many arguments to function ‘pow’; expected 0, have 2 604 | engmant = val/pow(10.0e0, engexp); | ^~~ ~~~~~~ format.c:571:21: note: declared here 571 | double engmant, pow(), engabs, engexp; | ^~~
file.c: In function ‘handle_backup’: file.c:2091:62: error: passing argument 3 of ‘pthread_create’ from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] 2091 | pthread_exists = (pthread_create(&fthread, NULL, do_autobackup, NULL) == 0) ? 1 : 0; | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | | void * (*)(void) In file included from file.c:87: /usr/include/pthread.h:204:36: note: expected ‘void * (*)(void *)’ but argument is of type ‘void * (*)(void)’ 204 | void *(*__start_routine) (void *), | ~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ file.c:2033:8: note: ‘do_autobackup’ declared here 2033 | void * do_autobackup() { | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
Should be a matter of 1) using the proper math.h header instead of the ad-hoc definition, and 2) adding a unused void* argument to the `do_autobackup` function. Ideally open a PR with the changes to upstream, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to be accepted – feel free to add the changes as a patch to the spec/srpm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #31 from TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/sc-im/srpm-builds... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/sc-im/srpm-builds...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
TomasJuhasz tjuhasz@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/sc-im/srpm-builds... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tjuhasz/sc-im/srpm-builds... Description: RPM package for sc-im, Spreadsheet Calculator Improvised, aka sc-im, is an ncurses based, vim-like spreadsheet calculator. Fedora Account System Username: tjuhasz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2066785 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2066785&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8390310 to 8551379
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8551379 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #34 from Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "BSD 4-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 167 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jstanek/redhat/fedora/review/2331669-sc-im/licensecheck.txt [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 35176 bytes in 8 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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 ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: sc-im-0.8.4-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm sc-im-0.8.4-3.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpnx4bn8c6')] checks: 32, packages: 2
sc-im.src: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', 'Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.src: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', '%description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', 'Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', '%description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scopen sc-im.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sc-im/y2l.readme 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sc-im-debuginfo-0.8.4-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpaxl26b4f')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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
sc-im.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', 'Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', '%description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') sc-im.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scopen sc-im.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sc-im/y2l.readme 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/andmarti1424/sc-im/archive/v0.8.4/sc-im-0.8.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ebb1f10006fe49f964a356494f96d86a4f06eb018659e3b9bde63b25c03abdf0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ebb1f10006fe49f964a356494f96d86a4f06eb018659e3b9bde63b25c03abdf0
Requires -------- sc-im (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libxlsreader.so.8()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- sc-im: sc-im sc-im(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2331669 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Ocaml, R, Python, Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Hello @tjuhasz, since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package sponsor before it can be accepted.
A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to packaging.
You can find all active sponsors here: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/
I created a sponsorship request for you: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/701 Please take a look and make sure the information is correct.
Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sc-im
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-82044e82cb (sc-im-0.8.4-3.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-82044e82cb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-01-20 15:56:10
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-82044e82cb (sc-im-0.8.4-3.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b0cdd11ac8 (sc-im-0.8.4-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b0cdd11ac8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-530e4500bf (sc-im-0.8.4-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-530e4500bf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b0cdd11ac8 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b0cdd11ac8 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b0cdd11ac8
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-530e4500bf has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-530e4500bf *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-530e4500bf
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-b0cdd11ac8 (sc-im-0.8.4-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331669
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-530e4500bf (sc-im-0.8.4-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com