--- Comment #7 from MUNEENDRA (Broadcom) <> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
> Yes, COPR is fine.
>  - Builds failed for me because the archive downloaded has a different root
> folder, so the folder should be changed in autosetup:
> %prep
> %autosetup -n bsn-fc-txptd-%{commit}
>  - Another issue is the %changelog entry:
> fc_txptd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1
> ['0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31', '0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67']
> It must reflect the Version-Release from the header, so:
> *Mon Aug 12 2019  Muneendra <> -
> 0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67
>  The rest of the SPEC is fine.
> Package Review
> ==============
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> ===== MUST items =====
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
>      BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
> [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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright*
>      GNU General Public License (v2)". 9 files have unknown license.
>      Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/bob/packaging/review/fc_txptd/review-fc_txptd/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.
> [-]: 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.
> [x]: 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]: 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 fc_txptd
> [?]: 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
> [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: fc_txptd-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31.x86_64.rpm
>           fc_txptd-debuginfo-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31.x86_64.rpm
>           fc_txptd-debugsource-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31.x86_64.rpm
>           fc_txptd-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31.src.rpm
> fc_txptd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Fibrechannel -> Channelize
> fc_txptd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail
> over, fail-over, spillover
> fc_txptd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1
> ['0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31', '0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67']
> fc_txptd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fctxpd
> fc_txptd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fc -> cf, dc, f
> fc_txptd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) txptd 
> fc_txptd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fc -> cf,
> dc, f
> fc_txptd-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txptd 
> fc_txptd-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fc -> cf, dc, f
> fc_txptd-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) txptd 
> fc_txptd-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fc ->
> cf, dc, f
> fc_txptd-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txptd 
> fc_txptd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Fibrechannel -> Channelize
> fc_txptd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US failover -> fail over,
> fail-over, spillover
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.

Hi Robert,
I have made the changes and  build the package for few distributions.
And below is the links for the updated Spec and SRPM URL

Spec URL:


You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
package-review mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:

Reply via email to