https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797524 Breno <brandfbb(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |brandfbb(a)gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Breno <brandfbb(a)gmail.com&gt; --- As we discussed by email, it's all good. -- 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=1797524 --- Comment #3 from Breno <brandfbb(a)gmail.com&gt; --- It complained a bit about the URLs, I tested them manually, they seem good. There are also some annoying complaints about spelling, but that's a missunderstading too. W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3.0 or later)", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike Public License (v4.0) GPL (v3 or later)". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/edata/home/breno/fedora-reviews/1797524/review- sourcextractor++/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sourcextractor++-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: 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: sourcextractor++-0.8-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm sourcextractor++-devel-0.8-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm sourcextractor++-doc-0.8-1.fc32.noarch.rpm sourcextractor++-debuginfo-0.8-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm sourcextractor++-debugsource-0.8-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm sourcextractor++-0.8-1.fc32.src.rpm sourcextractor++.x86_64: W: no-documentation sourcextractor++.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sourcextractor++ sourcextractor++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation sourcextractor++-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sourcextractor++-debuginfo-0.8-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm sourcextractor++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sourcextractor++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/astrorama/sourcextractorplusplus <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> sourcextractor++-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation sourcextractor++.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/astrorama/sourcextractorplusplus <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> sourcextractor++.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libModelFitting.so.0.8 /usr/lib64/../lib64/libgslcblas.so.0 sourcextractor++.x86_64: W: no-documentation sourcextractor++.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sourcextractor++ sourcextractor++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/astrorama/sourcextractorplusplus <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> sourcextractor++-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/astrorama/sourcextractorplusplus <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> sourcextractor++-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sourcextractor -> subcontractor sourcextractor++-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/astrorama/sourcextractorplusplus <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- sourcextractor++: /usr/lib64/python3.8/lib-dynload/_SourceXtractorPy.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/astrorama/sourcextractorplusplus/archive/0.8/sourcextr... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 91212686d0d15c47147e2a885b20eca6c71ab49bbfc63d8c352500fcf784d002 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 91212686d0d15c47147e2a885b20eca6c71ab49bbfc63d8c352500fcf784d002 Requires -------- sourcextractor++ (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) config(sourcextractor++) libCCfits.so.0()(64bit) libConfiguration.so.2.14.1()(64bit) libElementsKernel.so.5.8()(64bit) libModelFitting.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEFramework.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEImplementation.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEMain.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEUtils.so.0.8()(64bit) libTable.so.2.14.1()(64bit) libboost_filesystem.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libboost_python38.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libboost_regex.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcfitsio.so.7()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libfftw3f.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgsl.so.25()(64bit) libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit) liblevmar.so.2()(64bit) liblog4cpp.so.5()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.8.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libwcs.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) sourcextractor++-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) elements-alexandria(x86-64) elements-devel(x86-64) libModelFitting.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEFramework.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEImplementation.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEMain.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEUtils.so.0.8()(64bit) sourcextractor++(x86-64) sourcextractor++-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): elements-alexandria-doc elements-doc sourcextractor++-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sourcextractor++-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sourcextractor++: config(sourcextractor++) libModelFitting.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEFramework.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEImplementation.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEMain.so.0.8()(64bit) libSEUtils.so.0.8()(64bit) sourcextractor++ sourcextractor++(x86-64) sourcextractor++-devel: cmake(SourceXtractorPlusPlus) cmake(SourceXtractorPlusPlusPlatform) sourcextractor++-devel sourcextractor++-devel(x86-64) sourcextractor++-doc: sourcextractor++-doc sourcextractor++-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) sourcextractor++-debuginfo sourcextractor++-debuginfo(x86-64) sourcextractor++-debugsource: sourcextractor++-debugsource sourcextractor++-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n sourcextractor++ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Java, R, Haskell, fonts 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=1797524 --- Comment #4 from Breno <brandfbb(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Oh, one last thing, it seems that the upstream has a testsuite. So, do you think we can pass this one? [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass -- 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=1797524 --- Comment #6 from Breno <brandfbb(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thanks Alejandro, I didn't set it to + yet, because of this issue here[1]. I am waiting for the feedback from the fedora-infrastructure team. 1 - https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8628 -- 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=1797524 --- Comment #8 from Alejandro Alvarez <a.alvarezayllon(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thanks a lot to you both! Good luck with your permissions, Breno. I hope that gets fixed soon. -- 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=1797524 Alejandro Alvarez <a.alvarezayllon(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? -- 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=1797524 Alejandro Alvarez <a.alvarezayllon(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #11 from Alejandro Alvarez <a.alvarezayllon(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Breno, Can you try to set/reset the flag, as they suggest on the pagure ticket? Thanks. -- 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=1797524 --- Comment #12 from Breno <brandfbb(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Alejandro, Sure, I had a busy week (plus the holiday here) and didn't have time to see this before. It's done. Are we all good now? Thanks. -- 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=1797524 --- Comment #14 from Alejandro Alvarez <a.alvarezayllon(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Yes, Breno, thanks a lot! -- 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=1797524 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- sourcextractor++-0.8-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bf285e44c1 -- 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=1797524 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- sourcextractor++-0.8-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-065df6d489 -- 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=1797524 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- sourcextractor++-0.8-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, 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=1797524 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-bf285e44c1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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