https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
Bug ID: 2182080 Summary: Review Request: snobol4 - A port of Macro SNOBOL4 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: spotrh@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/snobol4.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/snobol4-2.3.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: This is a free port of the original SIL (SNOBOL4 Implementation Language) "macro" version of SNOBOL4 (developed at Bell Labs) with the `C' language as a target.
SNOBOL4, while known primarily as a string language excels at any task involving symbolic manipulations. It provides dynamic typing, garbage collection, user data types, on the fly compilation. Fedora Account System Username: spot Fedora 37 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=99193040
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |http://www.regressive.org/s | |nobol4/csnobol4/curr/
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5712307 (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=2182080
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review. If you have time (ha ha!), could you possibly review bug 2176933 in exchange? It's a small python package, shouldn't be hard to review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- I came here to offer my review, happy to take the small Python package instead. Tom has recently done something useful for me, so that should keep the exchange loop closed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway spotrh@gmail.com --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #3)
I came here to offer my review, happy to take the small Python package instead. Tom has recently done something useful for me, so that should keep the exchange loop closed.
I went to go start that review in 2176933 and saw it was assigned to you before I read this comment and I was momentarily confused as to why he could need me if he had you. :D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I don't know, Miro. I think I was already in debt to you, so this is going to push me in deeper. :-) For this review:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues ====== - The output from licensecheck shows files with other licenses. These are the ones I see being compiled in the build log: BSD-3-Clause: modules/random/random.c BSD-4-Clause: lib/bsd/popen.c ISC: modules/base64/base64.c
- Nit pick: the URL could be https instead of http. Not a requirement, just pointing it out.
- Nit pick: I understand we prefer to use %{build_cflags} and %{build_cxxflags} these days instead of %{optflags}. Also not a requirement.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License", "ISC License", "Kevlin Henney License". 732 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2182080-snobol4/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 215040 bytes in 36 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in snobol4-devel
Errrrr ... it's in there. I'm looking at it. Fedora-review bug?
[?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
However, regression tests are run during the build, so there is probably no point to a separate %check script.
[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: 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: snobol4-2.3.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm snobol4-devel-2.3.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm snobol4-debuginfo-2.3.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm snobol4-debugsource-2.3.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm snobol4-2.3.1-1.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/tmp0wfetq57')] checks: 31, packages: 5
snobol4.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: snobol4-2.3.1-configure-no-opt.patch snobol4-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib snobol4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdb-2.3.1 snobol4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snobol4-2.3.1 snobol4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snopea-2.3.1 snobol4-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation snobol4.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary SNOBOL4 snobol4.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary SNOBOL4 snobol4.spec:47: W: configure-without-libdir-spec ================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s =================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: snobol4-debuginfo-2.3.1-1.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/tmpan3cs5jk')] 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: 4
snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/base64.so retstring_free (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/base64.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so lookup_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so remove_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so nmgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so new_handle2 (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so new_handle2 (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so lookup_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so remove_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so mgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/fork.so getstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/fork.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/fork.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/fork.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/logic.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/logic.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so getstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so new_handle2 (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so lookup_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so remove_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so mgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/readline.so retstring_free (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/readline.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/readline.so mgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/readline.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sprintf.so getstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sprintf.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sprintf.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sprintf.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so nmgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so new_handle2 (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so lookup_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so remove_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so mgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stat.so mgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stat.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so new_handle2 (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so lookup_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so remove_handle (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so mgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/time.so getstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/time.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/time.so nmgetstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/time.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/time.so retstring (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/time.so) snobol4.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/zlib.so retstring_free (/usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/zlib.so) snobol4-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib snobol4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdb-2.3.1 snobol4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snobol4-2.3.1 snobol4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snopea-2.3.1 snobol4-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation snobol4.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary SNOBOL4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 46 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.4 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/base64.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/digest.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/dirs.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/fork.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/logic.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/ndbm.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/random.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/readline.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sprintf.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/sqlite3.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stat.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/stcl.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/time.so snobol4: /usr/lib64/snobol4/2.3.1/lib/shared/zlib.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.regressive.org/snobol4/snobol4-2.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 91244d67d4e29d2aadce5655bd4382ffab44c624a7ea4ad6411427f3abf17535 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 91244d67d4e29d2aadce5655bd4382ffab44c624a7ea4ad6411427f3abf17535
Requires -------- snobol4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh glibc libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgdbm_compat.so.4()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libtcl8.6.so()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
snobol4-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): snobol4(x86-64)
snobol4-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
snobol4-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- snobol4: snobol4 snobol4(x86-64)
snobol4-devel: snobol4-devel snobol4-devel(x86-64)
snobol4-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) snobol4-debuginfo snobol4-debuginfo(x86-64)
snobol4-debugsource: snobol4-debugsource snobol4-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2182080 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Ocaml, Python, R, Perl, Haskell, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway spotrh@gmail.com --- New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/snobol4-2.3.1-2.fc39.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/snobol4.spec
- fix URL to be https - use build_cflags and build_cxxflags - correct License tag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1954798 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1954798&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5712307 to 5731300
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5731300 (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=2182080
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Looks good. This package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/snobol4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bfcb03f733 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bfcb03f733
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5265f4737a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5265f4737a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5265f4737a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5265f4737a
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=2182080
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bfcb03f733 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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-bfcb03f733 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bfcb03f733
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=2182080
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-42b4a1056a 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-2023-42b4a1056a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-42b4a1056a
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=2182080
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-04-09 01:41:17
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bfcb03f733 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-42b4a1056a has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182080
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-5265f4737a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com