[Bug 2330974] New: Review Request: treeland-protocols - User guides of the system and applications on Deepin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
Bug ID: 2330974 Summary: Review Request: treeland-protocols - User guides of the system and applications on Deepin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: topazus@outlook.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/treeland-protocols.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/treeland-protocols-0.4.5-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: User guides of the system and applications on Deepin Fedora Account System Username: topazus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://github.com/linuxdee | |pin/treeland-protocols
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8361210 (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=2330974
--- Comment #2 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/treeland-protocols.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/treeland-protocols-0.4.5-1.fc42.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2061557 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2061557&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8361210 to 8361352
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8361352 (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=2330974
Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |shattuckite@outlook.com
--- Comment #5 from Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Apache License 2.0". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/treeland- protocols/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 800 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: treeland-protocols-devel-0.4.5-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm treeland-protocols-0.4.5-1.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/tmpeu8xyrmr')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "treeland-protocols-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linuxdeepin/treeland-protocols/archive/0.4.5/treeland-pro... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 13f0c4fdc37dacc5b492f8d9aba1cb504b920c5b34dda661f1f36f79d0a20a55 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 13f0c4fdc37dacc5b492f8d9aba1cb504b920c5b34dda661f1f36f79d0a20a55
Requires -------- treeland-protocols-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem
Provides -------- treeland-protocols-devel: cmake(TreelandProtocols) cmake(treelandprotocols) pkgconfig(treeland-protocols) treeland-protocols-devel treeland-protocols-devel(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name treeland-protocols --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, R, Haskell, fonts, Java, C/C++, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |shattuckite@outlook.com Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com --- [x] package name is OK [x] license is acceptable for Fedora [x] builds and installs OK [x] BR/P/R look correct [x] There are no big rpmlint issues
----
There is a small issue that needs to be fixed before getting approved.
%global debug_package %{nil}
You can remove this line by adding `BuildArch: noarch`.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
--- Comment #7 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/treeland-protocols.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/treeland-protocols-0.4.5-1.fc42.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com --- Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/treeland-protocols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-fe73958e6a (treeland-protocols-0.4.5-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-fe73958e6a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330974
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-12-09 12:43:44
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-fe73958e6a (treeland-protocols-0.4.5-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com