[Bug 2138050] New: Review Request: crosswords-puzzle-sets-gnome - Extra puzzles to go with GNOME Crosswords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
Bug ID: 2138050 Summary: Review Request: crosswords-puzzle-sets-gnome - Extra puzzles to go with GNOME Crosswords Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/crosswords-puzzle-sets-gnome/crossw... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/crosswords-puzzle-sets-gnome/crossw...
Description: This package is for collecting the great puzzles put out by crossword authors to go with GNOME Crosswords.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93475248
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Depends On| |2137749
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2137749 [Bug 2137749] Review Request: crosswords - Crossword player and editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050 Bug 2138050 depends on bug 2137749, which changed state.
Bug 2137749 Summary: Review Request: crosswords - Solve crossword puzzles https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2137749
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- LGTM, consider updating to the latest snapshot when importing
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [-]: 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". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2138050-crosswords-puzzle-sets- gnome/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. => there's a new snapshot from Nov 7 [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. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.gnome.org/jrb/puzzle-sets-gnome/-/archive/3033c8222b5286d799b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65be0636d00bddf9738d8e823349de3102b22229097d0ad81874a78b18b8a925 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65be0636d00bddf9738d8e823349de3102b22229097d0ad81874a78b18b8a925
Requires -------- crosswords-puzzle-sets-gnome (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): crosswords
Provides -------- crosswords-puzzle-sets-gnome: crosswords-puzzle-sets-gnome metainfo() metainfo(org.gnome.Crosswords.PuzzleSets.gnome.metainfo.xml)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2138050 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/crosswords-puzzle-sets-gnome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-aac2c0609a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-aac2c0609a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-11-12 03:06:26
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-aac2c0609a 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=2138050
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-39b4253c2f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-39b4253c2f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-39b4253c2f 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-2022-39b4253c2f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-39b4253c2f
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=2138050
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-39b4253c2f 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=2138050
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-900b49f126 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-900b49f126
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138050
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-900b49f126 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-2022-900b49f126 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-900b49f126
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=2138050
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-900b49f126 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com