https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1971386 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca <dcavalca(a)fb.com&gt; --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=70038679 -- 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=1971386 Davide Cavalca <dcavalca(a)fb.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1971394 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1971394 [Bug 1971394] Review Request: x11docker - Run GUI applications and desktops in Linux containers -- 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=1971386 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel(a)michel-slm.name&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel(a)michel-slm.name&gt; --- Looks fine. Consider sharing the description between tini and tini-static, since the latter is meant to be used independently of tini see e.g. Cython's spec https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/Cython/blob/rawhide/f/Cython.spec#_37-51 APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. this should not be a MUST so it's fine [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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1971386-tini/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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tini- static [?]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: tini-0.19.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm tini-static-0.19.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm tini-debuginfo-0.19.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm tini-debugsource-0.19.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm tini-0.19.0-1.fc35.src.rpm tini.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) init -> unit, int, nit tini.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit tini.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tini tini-static.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/tini-static tini-static.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tini-static tini.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) init -> unit, int, nit tini.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tini-static-debuginfo-0.19.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm tini-debuginfo-0.19.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/krallin/tini/archive/v0.19.0/tini-0.19.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0fd35a7030052acd9f58948d1d900fe1e432ee37103c5561554408bdac6bbf0d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fd35a7030052acd9f58948d1d900fe1e432ee37103c5561554408bdac6bbf0d Requires -------- tini (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tini-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tini-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tini-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tini: tini tini(x86-64) tini-static: tini-static tini-static(x86-64) tini-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tini-debuginfo tini-debuginfo(x86-64) tini-debugsource: tini-debugsource tini-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1971386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Perl, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=1971386 Davide Cavalca <dcavalca(a)fb.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED Fixed In Version| |tini-0.19.0-1.fc35 -- 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=1971386 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2021-9f2524be9e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9f2524be9e -- 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=1971386 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b5abacf758 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b5abacf758 -- 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=1971386 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2021-d96b00b4ea has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-d96b00b4ea \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d96b00b4ea 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=1971386 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2021-9f2524be9e 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-2021-9f2524be9e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9f2524be9e 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=1971386 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-06-24 16:45:53 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2021-d96b00b4ea 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1971386 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b5abacf758 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 on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component