https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Artur Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1862306 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862306 [Bug 1862306] Review Request: easyrpg-player - Game interpreter for RPG Maker 2000/2003 and EasyRPG games -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I see this package is related to the easyrpg project. Would it make sense to rename it to "easyrpg-liblcf"? This might require some path trickery, though, because then %{name} would resolve to something else than the current paths expect. licensecheck reports the following as BSD-licensed: liblcf-0.6.2/src/ini.cpp: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License liblcf-0.6.2/src/ini.h: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License liblcf-0.6.2/src/inireader.cpp: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License liblcf-0.6.2/src/inireader.h: BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License The License block should probably say "BSD and MIT" and in a comment above you can mention that src/ini.* and src/inireader.* files are BSD-licensed, since they're in minority. The expat-devel package provides a pkgconfig config, so you can specify it with "pkgconfig(expat)". Not the case for libicu-devel apparently. The last line should say "%{_datadir}/mime/packages/%{name}/" if the package is supposed to own that directory. Should the package own the "%{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/" dir? If so, remove the trailing asterisk. Also, rpmlint reports the following files as not associated with the package, yet installed: /usr/share/mime/XMLnamespaces /usr/share/mime/aliases /usr/share/mime/application/x-ldb.xml /usr/share/mime/application/x-lmt.xml /usr/share/mime/application/x-lmu.xml /usr/share/mime/application/x-lsd.xml /usr/share/mime/generic-icons /usr/share/mime/globs /usr/share/mime/globs2 /usr/share/mime/icons /usr/share/mime/magic /usr/share/mime/mime.cache /usr/share/mime/subclasses /usr/share/mime/treemagic /usr/share/mime/types /usr/share/mime/version Full review matrix: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "FSF All Permissive License". 177 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/liblcf/liblcf/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/liblcf Review: mentioned in an earlier comment [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/liblcf, /usr/share/mime/packages, /usr/share/mime [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 [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: some comments require addressing. [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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [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 liblcf- devel [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: liblcf-0.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm liblcf-devel-0.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm liblcf-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm liblcf-debugsource-0.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm liblcf-0.6.2-1.fc33.src.rpm liblcf.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblcf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblcf.src: W: strange-permission liblcf.spec 600 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: liblcf-debuginfo-0.6.2-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name liblcf-devel (none): E: no installed packages by name liblcf (none): E: no installed packages by name liblcf-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name liblcf-debugsource 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/EasyRPG/liblcf/archive/0.6.2/liblcf-0.6.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ed1371a0f116be2d674ec6c4bebc0d6578a3a5e886d1ffdb2aaaca952d2569b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ed1371a0f116be2d674ec6c4bebc0d6578a3a5e886d1ffdb2aaaca952d2569b1 Requires -------- liblcf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libicui18n.so.67()(64bit) libicuuc.so.67()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) liblcf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) liblcf liblcf.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(expat) pkgconfig(icu-i18n) liblcf-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): liblcf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- liblcf: liblcf liblcf(x86-64) liblcf.so.0()(64bit) liblcf-devel: cmake(liblcf) liblcf-devel liblcf-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(liblcf) liblcf-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) liblcf-debuginfo liblcf-debuginfo(x86-64) liblcf-debugsource: liblcf-debugsource liblcf-debugsource(x86-64) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I agree it makes more sense to leave it as "liblcf" if it's not strictly tied to the rest of the easyrpg packages. Nice! My bad then. The asterisk at the end confused me a bit. Can confirm they're gone. Great! I re-ran fedora-review and things look almost perfect now. However, I see rpmlint picked up a couple more things I missed last time: Rpmlint ------- Checking: liblcf-0.6.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm liblcf-devel-0.6.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm liblcf-debuginfo-0.6.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm liblcf-debugsource-0.6.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm liblcf-0.6.2-2.fc33.src.rpm liblcf.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblcf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblcf.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) # not sure where this comes from, since the SPEC file looks okay space/tab wise. 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. The main source dir contains a README.md file. I would include it in both the main and -devel subpackage with the %doc macro. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #5 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Awesome! Re-ran all checks. All lights are green. Package approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liblcf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e208cf4e22 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862305 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-08-19 00:51:37 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-d6ea20d3da has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component