https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
Bug ID: 2055602 Summary: Review Request: colortest - Bash script to display terminal colors Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: glaringgibbon@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/glaringgibbon/colortest/f... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/glaringgibbon/colortest/f... Description: Quickly show all your terminal colours Fedora Account System Username: glaringgibbon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Thank you for the package! Overall, it looks good, but I think a couple of things should be fixed.
- Tue Feb 15 2022 glaringgibbon glaringgibbon@gmail.com - 3.0.4-1
I am not sure if it is an enforced policy or not but it is common to put a full name into the changelog entries. See the guidelines for an example https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
Version: 3.0.4 Source0: https://github.com/pablopunk/%%7Bname%7D/archive/refs/heads/master.zip
You are packaging 3.0.4 version, which is what I would expect but the problem is that you are using different a source tarball. If you look at https://github.com/pablopunk/colortest/commits/master you can see that since the actual 3.0.4 version, multiple commits (9 if I count correctly) have happened.
Also, packaging sources from the `master` branch is problematic in another way - each time we would rebuild the package, the sources tarball could be different (if the author pushed some changes in the meantime).
You actually want to download the Source0 like this %{URL}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_ta...
I understand why you needed to package `master` instead of the actual version, which is the added LICENSE file. You will probably have to ask upstream to release 3.0.5 version.
A few really nitpicky notes - There are two blank lines between sections but between %files and %changelog, there is just one. Also between the email in the changelog and the dash, there is a double space.
Otherwise, I tried the package and it works, so cheers!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Will sponsor once the review is done
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=2055602
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Thank you very much Michael, I became a sponsor in the meantime as well.
But we shall first see how the review turns out.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com's needinfo: Bug 2055602: Review Request: colortest - Bash script to display terminal colors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- I am interested in reviewing this ticket but there is no response from the contributor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jkadlcik@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- I am interested in reviewing this ticket but there is no response from the contributor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
andreyesquivel.dev@proton.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andreyesquivel.dev@proton.m | |e
--- Comment #8 from andreyesquivel.dev@proton.me --- Hello team,
This is my mock review for Fedora sponsorship process.
Spec file observations:
Version: 3.0.4 (note that 3.0.5 is available, you should consider updating to the latest version)
Summary: Quickly show all your terminal colours Currently, uses "colours". You must change to "colors." (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/)
Source0: Currently, points to the master branch ZIP: https://github.com/pablopunk/%%7Bname%7D/archive/refs/heads/master.zip
Consider replacing it with the tarball URL format: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_ta...)
%prep section: Consider using: %autosetup -n -p0 (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_autosetup)
%install section: Consider specifying the exact filename: install -m 0755 %{name} %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name} (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/)
Consider creating a manpage using the tool help2man to avoid "W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest" during rpmlint test (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages). This will also improve package quality.
I hope this review is helpful for other reviewers. I am available to assist with any further questions or clarifications. Feedback is always welcome.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- The macro %{name} in the install step will get substituted, so this is ok. It is a matter of style.
-p0 does not hurt, but is not needed as there are no patches.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
--- Comment #10 from andreyesquivel.dev@proton.me --- Hello,
As part of my Fedora packager sponsorship process, this is my mock review using the original .spec and .src.rpm files submitted in this Bugzilla.
Below is the full output from fedora-review. I have manually checked the following areas:
License: [ ] Needs correction: licensecheck found unknown entries and some files with unknown license. See detailed output in licensecheck.txt.
Summary: [ ] Contains British English spelling “colours” instead of American English “colors,” causing rpmlint spelling errors.
Source URL: [ ] Points to the master branch ZIP archive instead of a tagged tarball release, causing checksum mismatches.
Changelog: [ ] Not in prescribed format. (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/manual-changelog/)
Manual Page: [ ] Missing man page for the binary, recommended to add with help2man to avoid rpmlint warning.
Overall Build: [x] Builds cleanly in mock.
Rpmlint: [x] Minor warnings present but no blocking errors.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review-colortest/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review- colortest/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 does not use a name that already exists. [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 1399 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review- colortest/srpm-unpacked/colortest.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: colortest-3.0.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm colortest-3.0.4-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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/tmp8q6g40uc')] checks: 32, packages: 2
colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.src: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.src: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest colortest.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 checks: 32, packages: 1
colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pablopunk/colortest/archive/refs/heads/master.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4f8715ec7cb9737d70e29d4e17a1fdac178c078f90f73f7e0c4d454b2438ec8d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ecb72c0eab43dbc03fcfbc620774e187b63fa0de03b938637ce48d12ac6a87eb diff -r also reports differences
Requires -------- colortest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash
Provides -------- colortest: colortest
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n colortest Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
--- Comment #11 from andreyesquivel.dev@proton.me --- This comment provides an updated and detailed package review, including further analysis and recommendations based on the previous check performed.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review-colortest/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. licensecheck detected 4 files with unknown license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review- colortest/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. The original source shared in this ticket contains a zip file.
[-]: 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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. You must use American English. Colours → Colors.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: 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 does not use a name that already exists. [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 1399 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. There is a newer upstream version. (see https://github.com/pablopunk/colortest/releases/tag/3.0.5)
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Upstream does not provide GPG signatures for source archives.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Compilation tested on x86_64 only.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Consider adding a %check section.
[ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/andreyesquivel/secondmock/review- colortest/srpm-unpacked/colortest.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: colortest-3.0.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm colortest-3.0.4-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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/tmp8q6g40uc')] checks: 32, packages: 2
colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.src: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.src: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest colortest.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 checks: 32, packages: 1
colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', 'Summary(en_US) colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.noarch: E: spelling-error ('colours', '%description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours') colortest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colortest 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pablopunk/colortest/archive/refs/heads/master.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4f8715ec7cb9737d70e29d4e17a1fdac178c078f90f73f7e0c4d454b2438ec8d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ecb72c0eab43dbc03fcfbc620774e187b63fa0de03b938637ce48d12ac6a87eb diff -r also reports differences
Requires -------- colortest (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash
Provides -------- colortest: colortest
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n colortest Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Licensing seems ok, MIT license does not need to be in every file.
A tagged release should be used, or if not the commit should be specified.
As the package is a noarch package, testing on one architecture is fine.
A smoke test could probably be added. It is not mandatory though, but good to indicate it as a possible useful addition.
To check whether timestamps are preserved, check files in the rpms-unpacked folder using ls -lrt. Here it maybe useful to use `
install -pDm 0755 %{name} %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}
instead of
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} install -m 0755 %{name} %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/%{name}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Hello, I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer.
If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my apologies, feel free to close it.
[fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055602
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/pablopun | |k/%{name}
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9816062 (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/colortest/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.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org