https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997277 --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; --- Added the license file to -examples, and removed an unnecessary examples/ subdirectory under /usr/share/doc/lexertl14-examples/. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20210824/lexertl14.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20210824/lexertl14-0.1.0-1.20210824gitf8bb... -- 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=1997277 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Looks good. XXX APPROVED XXX 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Boost Software License 1.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1997277-lexertl14/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 71680 bytes in 19 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 lexertl14-devel , lexertl14-examples ^ header only, not needed [?]: 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. [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: 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: lexertl14-devel-0.1.0-1.20210824gitf8bb69f.fc36.x86_64.rpm lexertl14-examples-0.1.0-1.20210824gitf8bb69f.fc36.noarch.rpm lexertl14-0.1.0-1.20210824gitf8bb69f.fc36.src.rpm lexertl14-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analysers -> analyses, analyzers, analysands lexertl14-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib lexertl14.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lexertl -> lexer lexertl14.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lexertl -> lexer lexertl14.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analysers -> analyses, analyzers, analysands 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BenHanson/lexertl14/archive/f8bb69f459beead2624242db74... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c2dc2299534f8983da478e01af8e151b594f5264b8fabb089ecf84dda7ba9999 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c2dc2299534f8983da478e01af8e151b594f5264b8fabb089ecf84dda7ba9999 Requires -------- lexertl14-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem cmake-filesystem(x86-64) lexertl14-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lexertl14-devel: cmake(lexertl) lexertl14-devel lexertl14-devel(x86-64) lexertl14-static lexertl14-examples: lexertl14-examples Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1997277 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Perl, fonts, PHP, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ---------- Ben, thanks for all your help with the NeuroFedora packages. Since this is required by one of our packages, we'll be happy to help maintain it if you can add the neuro-sig with commit rights. May I also add you to the neuro-sig packager group if you're generally interested in the NeuroFedora packages? That way you'll have commit rights and can skip the pull requests when they're overkill? Cheers, Ankur -- 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=1997277 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lexertl14 -- 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=1997277 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e99f15d214 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e99f15d214 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997277 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2021-b93d8f9c57 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b93d8f9c57 -- 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=1997277 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2021-33dbfd0cc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-33dbfd0cc7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-33dbfd0cc7 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997277 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2021-b93d8f9c57 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b93d8f9c57 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b93d8f9c57 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997277 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2021-09-02 23:07:48 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e99f15d214 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997277 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2021-585e926060 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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