https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
Bug ID: 2173677 Summary: Review Request: regextester - Regex Tester for elementary OS Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: gwync@protonmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Description: Regex Tester for elementary OS
SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester-1.1.1-1.fc37.s... SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/artemanu | |frij/regextester
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5572964 (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=2173677
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |vascom2@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vascom2@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- 1. %post and %postun sections seems not needed.
2. Need to add %check section with desktop and appdata.xml files validation.
3. Add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
4. Query upstream to include License file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester-1.1.1-2.fc37.s... SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester.spec
Updated. Commented out check as I was able to patch one appdata error but I'm not sure how to fix the others.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Desktop and appdata files must be validated https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_ins... https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1946947 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1946947&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5572964 to 5579266
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5579266 (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=2173677
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- https://github.com/artemanufrij/regextester/issues/33 https://github.com/artemanufrij/regextester/pull/34
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Need to wait when upstream or you make changes and validate files in spec-file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester-1.1.1-3.fc37.s... SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester.spec
Additional patch to adjust validation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1947311 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1947311&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5579266 to 5583951
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5583951 (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=2173677
--- Comment #12 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Need to add BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
And to %check section add:
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.desktop appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/metainfo/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.appdata.xml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester-1.1.1-4.fc37.s... SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester.spec
Added BR. Steps in meson_test already carry out both validations.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1947510 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1947510&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5583951 to 5586818
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5586818 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2173677
--- Comment #16 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Validation failed. Seems need "--nonet" for appdata validation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #17 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester-1.1.1-5.fc37.s... SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/regextester/regextester.spec
Fixed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1947704 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1947704&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5586818 to 5590018
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5590018 (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=2173677
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #20 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file.
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: 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]: 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", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 419 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2173677-regextester/licensecheck.txt [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/share/locale/mo, /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/mo [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: 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. [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: 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: regextester-1.1.1-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm regextester-debuginfo-1.1.1-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm regextester-debugsource-1.1.1-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm regextester-1.1.1-5.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/tmpaf8x8rz7')] checks: 31, packages: 4
regextester.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.artemanufrij.regextester regextester.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.mo regextester.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg regextester.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg regextester.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg ============================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.0 s ============================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: regextester-debuginfo-1.1.1-5.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/tmpzj08tp11')] checks: 31, packages: 1
============================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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
regextester.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary com.github.artemanufrij.regextester regextester.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.mo regextester.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg regextester.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg regextester.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.svg 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/artemanufrij/regextester/archive/1.1.1/regextester-1.1.1.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 619e9cb465f98119c17864078d3f308ab5eed4ff1af59f4b45254033cd10a05e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 619e9cb465f98119c17864078d3f308ab5eed4ff1af59f4b45254033cd10a05e
Requires -------- regextester (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgranite.so.6()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
regextester-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
regextester-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- regextester: application() application(com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(com.github.artemanufrij.regextester.appdata.xml) regextester regextester(x86-64)
regextester-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) regextester-debuginfo regextester-debuginfo(x86-64)
regextester-debugsource: regextester-debugsource regextester-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2173677 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, R, PHP, Haskell, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #21 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/regextester
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c7a2cb610f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c7a2cb610f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c7a2cb610f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c7a2cb610f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c7a2cb610f
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=2173677
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-81bafd33c6 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-81bafd33c6
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=2173677
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-03-15 00:17:30
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-81bafd33c6 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173677
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c7a2cb610f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com