https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vim-fugitive-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/praiskup/vim-fugitive-... -- 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gotmax(a)e.email --- Comment #3 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; --- Re the versioning: The Packaging Guidelines recommend that, when packaging git snapshots, you put the commit information into the Version field as opposed to the release field. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_sn... . In this case, your Version field could be `0~%{posttag}`, and your Release field would just be `Release: 1%{?dist}` (generally, the Release of newly imported packages should start at 1). -- 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |gotmax(a)e.email --- Comment #5 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; --- Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I can complete the review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ==== Issues ==== ``` %changelog * Wed Jul 06 2022 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; - 0~20220701gitb73a8e-3 - fix versioning, put posttag into the Version * Sun Jul 03 2022 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; - 0-2.20220701git85d4e1 - upstream shipped the LICENSE file (MIT) - fix typo in description * Fri Jul 01 2022 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com&gt; - 0-1.20220701git85d4e1 - initial packaging, inspiration from vim-rhubarb.spec ``` This no longer sorts properly. You should remove the previous entries. ``` $ rpmdev-vercmp 0-2.20220701git85d4e1 0~20220701gitb73a8e-3 0-2.20220701git85d4e1 > 0~20220701gitb73a8e-3 ``` ``` install -p -m 0644 doc/fugitive-gitlab.txt %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/doc install -p -m 0644 plugin/gitlab.vim %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/plugin for filename in api fugitive omnifunc utils; do install -p -m 0644 autoload/gitlab/$filename.vim %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/autoload/gitlab done ``` This seems unnecessarily convoluted. Why don't you just use `cp -rp`to copy the directories that you need? This should only depend on vim-filesystem. ===== MUST items ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git- repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/vim-fugitive-gitlab/vim- fugitive-gitlab/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. See note above about sorting [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See note above about vim-common. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. NOTE: noarch package [!]: %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). Rpmlint ------- vim-fugitive-gitlab.spec: W: no-%build-section This is fine. You can include a blank build section if you'd like. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/shumphrey/fugitive-gitlab.vim/archive/b73a8e97de95d262... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c60b632d4a883d39ecdd079e32437a26148c26a56f0cef4a8b0ae295a4b970a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c60b632d4a883d39ecdd079e32437a26148c26a56f0cef4a8b0ae295a4b970a Requires -------- vim-fugitive-gitlab (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vim-common vim-fugitive Provides -------- vim-fugitive-gitlab: vim-fugitive-gitlab Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn vim-fugitive-gitlab Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Java, Perl, R, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 --- Comment #7 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; --- (In reply to Pavel Raiskup from comment #6) Yeah, that's good. Generally, packages should only have one changelog entry on import. I don't mind. From what I've seen, most vim plugin packages just depend on vim-filesystem. Please directly depend on that. It owns the directories. -- 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #9 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; --- Approved! Thanks for incorporating my feedback. -- 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-9d59c85784 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9d59c85784 -- 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176 -- 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e78f68bc31 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e78f68bc31 -- 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-2230657233 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2230657233 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2230657233 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24bae9230c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24bae9230c 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-68c7e36176 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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=2103073

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103073 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24bae9230c 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=2103073