[Bug 2195959] New: Review Request: pgn-extract - Portable Game Notation (PGN) Manipulator for Chess Games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
Bug ID: 2195959 Summary: Review Request: pgn-extract - Portable Game Notation (PGN) Manipulator for Chess Games Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davide@cavalca.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pgn-extract/pgn-extract.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pgn-extract/pgn-extract-22.11-1.fc3...
Description: pgn-extract is a command-line program for searching, manipulating and formatting chess games recorded in the Portable Game Notation (PGN) or something close. It is capable of handling files containing millions of games. It also recognises Chess960 encodings.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100825719
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/~ | |djb/pgn-extract
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5897240 (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=2195959
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v1.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]". 197 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/pgn-extract/2195959- -pgn-extract/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/pgn-extract [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pgn-extract [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 153600 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: pgn-extract-22.11-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm pgn-extract-debuginfo-22.11-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm pgn-extract-debugsource-22.11-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm pgn-extract-22.11-1.fc39.src.rpm =========================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp9dva_yr2')] checks: 31, packages: 4
============================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 6.5 s ===========================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pgn-extract-debuginfo-22.11-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm =========================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpymcw8ir_')] checks: 31, packages: 1
============================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 s ===========================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 3
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/~djb/pgn-extract/pgn-extract-22-11.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 331e84d55299987dc27f159292ea3b59b94c47edc972f32e96f4e6c0c8621c0b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 331e84d55299987dc27f159292ea3b59b94c47edc972f32e96f4e6c0c8621c0b
Requires -------- pgn-extract (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
pgn-extract-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pgn-extract-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pgn-extract: pgn-extract pgn-extract(x86-64)
pgn-extract-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pgn-extract-debuginfo pgn-extract-debuginfo(x86-64)
pgn-extract-debugsource: pgn-extract-debugsource pgn-extract-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2195959 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Perl, PHP, Java, Python, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Please modify spec file to add %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} in the files section b) Please also package the copyright file c) typedef.h seems to be under GPL 1.0 or later d) Warning when building: map.c: In function 'generate_pawn_moves': map.c:2153:27: warning: array subscript -1 is below array bounds of 'const Piece[12]' [-Warray-bounds=] 2153 | if (board->board[to_r][to_c] == OFF) { | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~ In file included from map.c:28: defs.h:89:11: note: while referencing 'board' 89 | Piece board[HEDGE+BOARDSIZE+HEDGE][HEDGE+BOARDSIZE+HEDGE]; | ^~~~~
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pgn-extract/pgn-extract.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/pgn-extract/pgn-extract-22.11-1.fc4...
Changelog: - update license tag - fix typo in description - add %{_datadir}/%{name} to %files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Thanks!
a) Please modify spec file to add %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} in the files section
Fixed
b) Please also package the copyright file
This is already included in %license
c) typedef.h seems to be under GPL 1.0 or later
Fixed
d) Warning when building:
These seem harmless in practice. I'd put up a PR but there isn't an upstream repo or an obvious contribution workflow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2062965 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2062965&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5897240 to 8410668
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8410668 (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=2195959
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org ---
b) Please also package the copyright file
This is already included in %license
The information in copyright is not included in COPYING. Please use either: %license COPYING copyright or %license COPYING %doc copyright
d) Warning when building:
These seem harmless in practice. I'd put up a PR but there isn't an upstream repo or an obvious contribution workflow.
Information can be sent by email to upstream, see: https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/djb/pgn-extract/
Approved. Sorry for the delay. Please fix (b) and update to the latest version on import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
--- Comment #10 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Thanks for the review! Repo request is failing with
The email address "benson_muite@emailplus.org" of the Bugzilla reviewer is not tied to a user in FAS or FAS check failed. Group membership can't be validated.
in https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/70923 -- I think you might need to add/update your bugzilla email in FAS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Updated. Please try to request the repo again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pgn-extract
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f05a842112 (pgn-extract-24.11-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f05a842112
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-12-18 20:07:52
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f05a842112 (pgn-extract-24.11-1.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=2195959
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-ab691c9cce (pgn-extract-24.11-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ab691c9cce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2195959
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-ab691c9cce 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-2024-ab691c9cce *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ab691c9cce
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=2195959
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-ab691c9cce (pgn-extract-24.11-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com