[Bug 2123810] New: Review Request: R-fontawesome - Easily work with 'Font Awesome' Icons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123810
Bug ID: 2123810 Summary: Review Request: R-fontawesome - Easily work with 'Font Awesome' Icons 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/R-fontawesome.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/R-fontawesome-0.3.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Easily and flexibly insert 'Font Awesome' icons into 'R Markdown' documents and 'Shiny' apps. These icons can be inserted into HTML content through inline 'SVG' tags or 'i' tags. There is also a utility function for exporting 'Font Awesome' icons as 'PNG' images for those situations where raster graphics are needed. Fedora Account System Username: spot Koji F37 Scratch Build (R 4.2.1 side tag): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91534061
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123810
Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |i.ucar86@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |i.ucar86@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- In this case, it's obvious, but it would be better to specify in a comment that OFL applies to the font and MIT to the rest, as the guidelines require. Otherwise, looks good to me. Package APPROVED. Review result attached for reference.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/iucar/fedora-review/2123810-R-fontawesome/review-R- fontawesome/licensecheck.txt [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: The package has the standard %install section. [x]: Package requires R-core.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. [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]: 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.
R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 0.3.0, packaged version is 0.3.0
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [-]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 3.1 starting (python version = 3.10.5, NVR = mock-3.1-1.fc36)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/R-fontawesome-0.3.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 11141b8d5dd74c85b8ed71e310d0024c -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.o7vfyu6m:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/R-fontawesome-0.3.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/fontawesome_0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4deefcf4d4580d84213f863351c2a23c39adbd2f8762d7477ec2faa8235a1a31 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4deefcf4d4580d84213f863351c2a23c39adbd2f8762d7477ec2faa8235a1a31
Requires -------- R-fontawesome (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R(ABI) R(htmltools) R(rlang) R-core
Provides -------- R-fontawesome: R(fontawesome) R-fontawesome bundled(fontawesome-fonts)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --prebuilt -n R-fontawesome Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, R Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123810
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-fontawesome
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com