[Bug 1477567] New: Review Request: gcolor3 - A simple color chooser written in GTK3 (like gcolor2)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
Bug ID: 1477567 Summary: Review Request: gcolor3 - A simple color chooser written in GTK3 (like gcolor2) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fnux@fnux.ch QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/fnux/gcolor3/gcolor3.git/plai... SRPM URL: http://files.fnux.ch/rpm/gcolor3-2.2-2.fc25.src.rpm Description: Gcolor3 is a color selection dialog written in GTK+ 3. It is much alike Gcolor2, but uses the newer GTK+ version to better integrate into your modern desktop. It has the same feature set as Gcolor2, except that recent versions of Gcolor3 use an .ini style file to save colors (older versions use the same file as Gcolor2).
Fedora Account System Username: fnux
This is my first package submission, hence I'm looking for a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #1 from Timothée Floure fnux@fnux.ch --- *** Bug 1477568 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
c72578@yahoo.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |c72578@yahoo.de Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |c72578@yahoo.de Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #2 from c72578@yahoo.de --- Dear Timothée, thanks for working on a Fedora rpm file of gcolor3.
Here are some initial comments:
- Please remove "Group: Development/Tools" from spec file, which is deprecated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups
- The license file has to be included separately (not under %doc) %license LICENSE
- Could you have a look at the BuildRequires entries and possibly add minimum required versions. What about requirement of perl? configure checks for it: checking for perl >= 5.8.1... 5.24.2
- rpmlint shows the following error: gcolor3.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml
When running appstream-util for validation of gcolor3.appdata.xml, I get the following output:
appstream-util validate /usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml /usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml: FAILED: • url-not-found : <screenshot> url not found [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Unia/unia.github.io/hugo/static/images/pro...] • url-not-found : <screenshot> url not found [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Unia/unia.github.io/hugo/static/images/pro...] Validation of files failed
This should be fixed/patched, ideally together with upstream and the screenshots saved in a "permanent" location.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Hello,
Quick problem: - LICENSE should be in %license, not %doc - Use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags} - The source file is just name v2.2.tar.gz: rename it to a more explicit name: Here's how to do it:
Source0: https://github.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/archive/v2.2.tar.gz#/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bvers....
- If possible, use pkgconfig to declare -devel BR. For example pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0)
- rpmlint fails because data/gcolor3.appdata.xml validation fails because of two 404 errors:
gcolor3-2.2/data/gcolor3.appdata.xml: FAILED: • url-not-found : <screenshot> url not found [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Unia/unia.github.io/hugo/static/images/pro...] • url-not-found : <screenshot> url not found [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Unia/unia.github.io/hugo/static/images/pro...] Validation of files failed
unia.github.io doesn't exist anymore. The URLs have changed to: - https://hjdskes.github.io/img/projects/gcolor3/saved.png - https://hjdskes.github.io/img/projects/gcolor3/picker.png
Report the bug upstream or better, propose them a pull request to fix this error. You can also add a patch fixing it in your SPEC with a comment to the bug number, until they release a fix upstream.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gcolor3/review-gcolor3/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in gcolor3 [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gcolor3-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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 [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: gcolor3-2.2-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm gcolor3-debuginfo-2.2-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm gcolor3-2.2-2.fc27.src.rpm gcolor3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii gcolor3.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gcolor3.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id gcolor3.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id gcolor3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gcolor3 gcolor3.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml gcolor3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
I'm looking for a sponsor too! You should add a "Block:" to this bug to FE-NEEDSPONSOR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
c72578@yahoo.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Assignee|c72578@yahoo.de |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #4 from c72578@yahoo.de --- Just a short addition to my previous comment: - Please ignore the part concerning perl ... - Here is some info on the minimum required version from configure.ac concerning min version of gtk3: GTK_REQUIRED=3.12.0 PKG_CHECK_MODULES([GCOLOR3], [gtk+-3.0 >= GTK_REQUIRED])
- FE-NEEDSPONSOR added to this review request.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- Validating the appdata file inside the spec file is a MUST, btw: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#AppData_files https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gcolor3/review-gcolor3/licensecheck.txt
Careful, here! This warning printed by fedora-review indicates that the real license may be "GPLv2+" not "GPLv2". Please double-check.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #6 from Timothée Floure fnux@fnux.ch --- Thank you for the reviews, here is an updated specfile and the related src.rpm :
* http://files.fnux.ch/bugzilla.redhat.com/1477567/2.2-3/gcolor3.spec * http://files.fnux.ch/bugzilla.redhat.com/1477567/2.2-3/gcolor3-2.2-appdata_u... * http://files.fnux.ch/bugzilla.redhat.com/1477567/2.2-3/gcolor3-2.2-3.fc26.sr...
About the gcolor3-2.2-appdata_url.patch, I'm not sure of what would be a 'safe' place for the screenshots (I don't consider github a 'safe' place).
Last question : should I use --nonet when validating the appdata file with appstream-util ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #7 from c72578@yahoo.de --- Storing the screenshots upstream should be OK. The issue, which you placed there is important to get this solved: https://github.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/issues/60
Please run the following for testing purposes, concerning your package review request:
fedora-review -b 1477567 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Currently failing, see results/build.log: ... + appstream-util validate-relax /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gcolor3-2.2-3.fc26.x86_64//usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gcolor3-2.2-3.fc26.x86_64//usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml: GLib-GIO-Message: Using the 'memory' GSettings backend. Your settings will not be saved or shared with other applications. FAILED: ? url-not-found : <screenshot> url not found [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/0d41086dd845e3ed01f0451190...] ? url-not-found : <screenshot> url not found [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/0d41086dd845e3ed01f0451190...] Validation of files failed ...
However, the links to the images are OK ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- This is because the mock environment has no internet access. You have to pass the "--nonet" option to appstream-util (see Appdata packaging guidelines) to skip checks that require internet access.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #9 from c72578@yahoo.de --- If you add --nonet, then it is OK: ... + appstream-util validate-relax --nonet /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gcolor3-2.2-4.fc27.x86_64//usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gcolor3-2.2-4.fc27.x86_64//usr/share/appdata/gcolor3.appdata.xml: GLib-GIO-Message: Using the 'memory' GSettings backend. Your settings will not be saved or shared with other applications. OK ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #10 from c72578@yahoo.de --- Here is a minor comment concerning the changelog: Please add an empty line between each entry. See example eject here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#eject
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---
Last question : should I use --nonet when validating the appdata file with appstream-util ?
Well, that's what the previously mentioned page in the Wiki tells: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #12 from c72578@yahoo.de --- The license is "GPLv2+". See also: https://github.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/issues/63
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #13 from Timothée Floure fnux@fnux.ch --- Here an updated version : http://files.fnux.ch/bugzilla.redhat.com/1477567/2.2-4/gcolor3.spec / http://files.fnux.ch/bugzilla.redhat.com/1477567/2.2-4/gcolor3-2.2-4.fc26.sr...
* Sun Sep 03 2017 Timothée Floure timothee.floure@fnux.ch - 2.2-4 - Update license field from GPLv2 to GPLv2+ - Use the --nonet flag in gcolor3.appdata.xml's validation - Add an empty line between each changelog entry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #14 from jeremy9856@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1376699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #15 from Benjamin Kircher benjamin.kircher@gmail.com --- Build the package from gcolor3-2.2-4.fc26.src.rpm and installed it.
Color picker does not work. Tested on GNOME 3 in F26. I presume it just does not work with Wayland yet. Upstream issue [1].
The "Website" link in the About dialog is broken. It 404's (target is https://unia.github.io/projects/gcolor3/). Upstream issue: [2].
[1] https://github.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/issues/38 [2] https://github.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/issues/54
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #16 from Timothée Floure fnux@fnux.ch --- Yes, those issues must be fixed upstream. I myself don't use Wayland but since the majority of the Fedora users use it I understand we may want to wait for the next version.
I guess the state of this review is something like "we're waiting for upstream to fix the issue with wayland" ? [1]
[1] https://github.com/Hjdskes/gcolor3/issues/38
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
Timothée Floure timothee.floure@fnux.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #17 from Timothée Floure timothee.floure@fnux.ch --- Upstream recently released v2.3:
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/fnux/public_git/rpm-gcolor3.git/plain/gcolor3.... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fnux/gcolor3/fedora-rawhide-...
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - This is not needed anymore:
%post /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
%postun if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : fi
%posttrans /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
- Add gcc as a BR
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache must not be invoked in %post and %posttrans for Fedora 26 and later. Note: icons in gcolor3 See: - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gcolor3/review- gcolor3/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gcolor3-debuginfo , gcolor3-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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 [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: gcolor3-2.3.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm gcolor3-debuginfo-2.3.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm gcolor3-debugsource-2.3.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm gcolor3-2.3.1-1.fc30.src.rpm gcolor3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii gcolor3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #19 from Timothée Floure timothee.floure@fnux.ch --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/fnux/public_git/rpm-gcolor3.git/plain/gcolor3.... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7130/29747130/gcolor3-2.3.1-1...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- All good, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
--- Comment #21 from Timothée Floure timothee.floure@fnux.ch --- The RHBZ account used to open this review does not match my FAS account, preventing the creation of the repository on dist-git. I re-opened a review [0], can you approve it?
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650019
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477567
Timothée Floure timothee.floure@fnux.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2018-11-15 02:09:36
--- Comment #22 from Timothée Floure timothee.floure@fnux.ch ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1650019 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com