https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252087

--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- I see. I have 2 weeks until a review is needed. I filed an unretirement request https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11813.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252087

Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ppisar@redhat.com | |) |

--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- I'm still interested in this review.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252087

Björn 'besser82' Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |besser82@fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #6 from Björn 'besser82' Esser besser82@fedoraproject.org --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists.

--> Has been retired; review is for unretirement. Not an issue here.

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/besser82/fedora/review/2252087-geteltorito/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

--> Upstream url has changed; url for Source0, too Please fix. New url: https://github.com/rainer042/geteltorito

===== 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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/fedora/review/2252087-geteltorito/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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]: 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 is not relocatable. [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 725 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). [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. [x]: 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 [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [!]: 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 ------- Checking: geteltorito-0.6-16.fc42.noarch.rpm geteltorito-0.6-16.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpq2oh67iq')] checks: 32, packages: 2

geteltorito.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geteltorito 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 32, packages: 1

geteltorito.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geteltorito 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~krienke/ftp/noarch/geteltorito/geteltorito... : CHECKSUM(SHA512) this package : c9823b8dffaf98d08383606aa21971605a001880bf7abfe614be4380963237ab55f0fcaeb6be393a3902b5d1dc43ce283ca16ef40ea142b2b2d825d3467e31e9 CHECKSUM(SHA512) upstream package : dec0900f2109660cf1fbb07d49c583a4f74874b62917317045774e7a9e862cccb15b5cc81a5bb4bb886f0b3cdff57744f36c2ecf3dd53cbfc9bc3ffb35ab8a53 diff -r also reports differences

Requires -------- geteltorito (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(Getopt::Std)

Provides -------- geteltorito: geteltorito

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -k sha512 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 2252087 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, C/C++, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

===== Solution =====

Package nit approved!

Please fix the urls as outlined above; things are fine then.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252087

--- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/geteltorito/geteltorito.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/geteltorito/geteltorito-0.6%5e20250116gacaaf...

Upstream has changed a license to GPL-3.0-only and is not sure about a license of geteltorito.bash file. Until resolved, I removed that file from the source archive.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252087

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8520116 (succeeded)

Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/geteltorito Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicti...

Please know that there can be false-positives.

--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.