https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054410 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jkadlcik(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hello Mikel, thank you for the package. I am surprised that rpmbuild doesn't complain about %{shortcommit} being undefined on the second line. But it works, so I think it's fine. This is AFAIK correct https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_up... but can you please submit an upstream issue asking them to release a proper version, and link it here in the spec? So that we can eventually move to something stable. -- 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=2054410

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054410 --- Comment #3 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel(a)olasagasti.info&gt; --- Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/shdoc.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/shdoc-0-1.20220827gitb64998d.fc3... - Updated to include latest commits - Change order for shortcommit and snapinfo - Added note about version (In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #1) I must have copied it from somewhere and didn't realize about the order as it was not failing. Fun fact, I suggested to change order in a spec review I did in the past. https://github.com/reconquest/shdoc/issues/55 (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) I checked again, as I didn't remember why I didn't add checks. The problem is that tests require some "bash vendoring" that author designed that I don't think it's possible to use in Fedora without non-trivial changes. https://github.com/reconquest/shdoc/blob/master/tests/run_tests#L8 -- 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=2054410

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054410 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thank you for the changes, it looks good to me now. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/git/package-review-tools/2054410-shdoc/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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: 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]: 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. [!]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 shdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shdoc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/reconquest/shdoc/archive/b64998d1a463775501a70d125b4d2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 825c69f82eacf07addd17bdc5ac1d89e3b06af74174d7ca433669db9fe893b3f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 825c69f82eacf07addd17bdc5ac1d89e3b06af74174d7ca433669db9fe893b3f Requires -------- shdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/gawk gawk Provides -------- shdoc: shdoc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2054410 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Python, C/C++, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml 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=2054410

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054410 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-2853acfce8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2853acfce8 -- 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=2054410