https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222423 Lukáš Nykrýn <lnykryn(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lnykryn(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lnykryn(a)redhat.com -- 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=1222423 --- Comment #1 from Lukáš Nykrýn <lnykryn(a)redhat.com&gt; --- In short: ipcalc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ipcalc-0.1.0/ipcalc-geoip.c ipcalc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ipcalc-0.1.0/ipcalc.c Otherwise looks fine. 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lnykryn/1222423-ipcalc/licensecheck.txt [X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses * /usr/share/licenses is now owned by filesystem in rawhide [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses * /usr/share/licenses is now owned by filesystem in rawhide [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 [-]: 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. * Have confilcts with old initscripts, which is desired [-]: 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 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: ipcalc-0.1.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ipcalc-0.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ipcalc-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ipcalc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ipcalc-0.1.0/ipcalc-geoip.c ipcalc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ipcalc-0.1.0/ipcalc.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- ipcalc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0(LIBPOPT_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1222423 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o=--yum Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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=1222423 --- Comment #3 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- btw. to be added in master (f23) it would require a version bump in initscripts. -- 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=1222423 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com&gt; --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ipcalc Short Description: IP network address calculator Owners: nmav Branches: master InitialCC: -- 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=1222423 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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=1222423 --- Comment #8 from Lukáš Nykrýn <lnykryn(a)redhat.com&gt; --- https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/initscripts.git/commit/?id=e5282b7755a4... -> removed ipcalc in upstream and new version -- 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=1222423 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1220391 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220391 [Bug 1220391] ipcalc doesn't work for IPv6 -- 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