https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722393

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- + RPM build errors:

BUILDSTDERR: error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/R-devtools-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64/usr/share/R/library/devtools/NEWS BUILDSTDERR: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/R-devtools-2.0.2-1.fc31.x86_64/usr/share/R/library/devtools/NEWS

It's NEWS.md:

%doc %{rlibdir}/%{packname}/NEWS.md

- RPM build errors:

BUILDSTDERR: error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/WORDLIST BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/rstudio/addins.dcf BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/CONDUCT.md BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/NEWS.md BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/appveyor.yml BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/codecov.yml BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/cran-comments.md BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/gpl-v3.md BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/mit-license.txt BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/omni-README BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/packagename-package.r BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/readme-rmd-pre-commit.sh BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/revdep.R BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/template.Rproj BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/test-example.R BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/testthat.R BUILDSTDERR: /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/travis.yml

%{rlibdir}/%{packname}/rstudio %{rlibdir}/%{packname}/templates %{rlibdir}/%{packname}/WORDLIST

- Ask upstream for a license file

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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)". 202 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/R-devtools/review-R- devtools/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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

R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: The package has the standard %install section. [x]: Package requires R-core.

===== 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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.

R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 2.0.2, packaged version is 2.0.2

===== 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: R-devtools-2.0.2-1.fc31.noarch.rpm R-devtools-2.0.2-1.fc31.src.rpm R-devtools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/R/library/devtools/templates/readme-rmd-pre-commit.sh 644 /bin/bash 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722393 Bug 1722393 depends on bug 1722397, which changed state.

Bug 1722397 Summary: Review Request: R-rhub - Connect to 'R-hub' https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722397

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722393

--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- Ping?

Also, here's a koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37285528

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722393

--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-devtools

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722393

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- R-devtools-2.1.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-da3c0867e9