https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Bug ID: 2133482 Summary: Review Request: stansoft - A streamlined accounting software solution Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rpm@stansoft.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://stansoft.sourceforge.net/dl/stansoft.spec SRPM URL: https://stansoft.sourceforge.net/dl/stansoft-8.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Stansoft is a comprehensive double-entry financial accounting system. It includes payroll for both the U.S. and UK. It is HMRC-recognised for UK PAYE RTI payroll and MTD VAT returns. Fedora Account System Username: stansoft
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for submitting the package. AUBIT4GL should be compiled as a separate package, and not bundled: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #2 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- There is a pending review for Aubit4gl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119494
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=2133482
--- Comment #3 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- The link you gave does not say it is forbidden to bundle and since a Fedora package of Aubit4GL does not exist, would it be acceptable to bundle in this case?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- No, some later package may use Aubit4GL. Unless there are heavy modifications, bundling is discouraged and usually needs an exception.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
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=2133482
--- Comment #5 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-...
Packaged with the system aubit4gl rpm package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://www.stansoft.org
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565820 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #7 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2005572 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2005572&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6565820 to 6784939
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6784939 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Documentation size is 2257793 bytes in 9 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #10 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2014702 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2014702&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6784939 to 6982660
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6982660 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Documentation size is 2311642 bytes in 9 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #13 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2014839 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2014839&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6982660 to 6983939
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6983939 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/stansoft/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #16 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2014854 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2014854&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6983939 to 6984037
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6984037 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #19 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- rpmlint has error 'explicit-lib-dependency libpq' It has a false-positive on anything with lib in the package name. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790869 Package libpq is required at runtime.
It also has warnings on non-standard-uid, non-standard-gid /var/lib/stansoft User stansoft owns the PostgreSQL database so must own this directory.
%{SOURCE2} is set as stansoft.rpmlintrc which includes rpmlint filters, but how can Copr be told to use this file when running rpmlint?
#stansoft.rpmlintrc addFilter('explicit-lib-dependency libpq') addFilter('non-standard-uid /var/lib/stansoft stansoft') addFilter('non-standard-gid /var/lib/stansoft stansoft')
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #20 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-...
Updated the Stansoft version, this package still is in need of a review if anyone wants to take it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2023059 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2023059&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6984037 to 7198693
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7198693 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #23 from Stansoft rpm@stansoft.org --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-...
Updated the Stansoft version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |
--- Comment #24 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- You may not set fedora-review flag on your own submission. Only a reviewer may set it.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org