https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2516184
Peter Lemenkov <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <[email protected]> --- Looks like SRPM contains outdated spec-file. Please ensure you will upload a proper one. Apart from that I don't see any issue with this package so here is my formal 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. [-]: The source package does not include the text of the license(s) in its own file. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: License file not installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format (autochangelog). [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contains desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No separate development 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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: The package does not contain systemd file(s). [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 1384 bytes in 1 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: I did not try of the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (1.1.0). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). ^^^ See my note above. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-1.1.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc-1.1.0-1.fc46.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-1.1.0-1.fc46.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6nkt2ljn')] checks: 32, packages: 3 gap-pkg-graphbacktracking.noarch: E: spelling-error ('coset', '%description -l en_US coset -> cotes, cost, cosset') gap-pkg-graphbacktracking.noarch: E: spelling-error ('combinatorial', '%description -l en_US combinatorial -> combination') gap-pkg-graphbacktracking.src: E: spelling-error ('coset', '%description -l en_US coset -> cotes, cost, cosset') gap-pkg-graphbacktracking.src: E: spelling-error ('combinatorial', '%description -l en_US combinatorial -> combination') gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 11 warnings, 12 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.5 s ^^^ LGTM. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 33, packages: 2 gap-pkg-graphbacktracking.noarch: E: spelling-error ('coset', '%description -l en_US coset -> cotes, cost, cosset') gap-pkg-graphbacktracking.noarch: E: spelling-error ('combinatorial', '%description -l en_US combinatorial -> combination') gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/GraphBacktracking/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/peal/GraphBacktracking/archive/v1.1.0/GraphBacktracking-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6413aa9fe813ce135699493bc1c0c483ee325d5f533a9a3b318df135427f5baa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6413aa9fe813ce135699493bc1c0c483ee325d5f533a9a3b318df135427f5baa Requires -------- gap-pkg-graphbacktracking (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap(backtrackkit) gap(digraphs) gap(images) gap-core gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap-online-help gap-pkg-backtrackkit-doc gap-pkg-graphbacktracking Provides -------- gap-pkg-graphbacktracking: gap(GraphBacktracking) gap(graphbacktracking) gap-pkg-graphbacktracking gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc: gap-pkg-graphbacktracking-doc Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2516184-gap-pkg-graphbacktracking/srpm/gap-pkg-graphbacktracking.spec 2026-09-08 00:19:27.806537654 +0200 +++ /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2516184-gap-pkg-graphbacktracking/srpm-unpacked/gap-pkg-graphbacktracking.spec 2026-08-13 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -62,5 +62,5 @@ # Nimbus: AGPL-3.0-only License: MPL-2.0 AND Knuth-CTAN AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND AGPL-3.0-only -Summary: GraphBacktracking documentation +Summary: Images documentation Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: gap-online-help Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2516184 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, PHP, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================ -- 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=2516184 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202516184%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
