https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443772
--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #2) > > 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 /var/lib/copr- > rpmbuild/results/ripgrep-edit/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ I seemed to use the wrong tarball here, in COPR we use "make -f .copr/Makefile dist" and it will certainly not match upstream 1:1. Will use raw upstream then. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ripgrep- > edit-emacs > > I think you need to check this is correct. You may have to add %{?_isa} > so that it depends on the correct arch-specific package. I think we don't want %{?_isa} here: ripgrep-edit-emacs is explicitly 'noarch' and if I add %{?_isa} we will see: $ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/ripgrep-edit-emacs-0.3.8-1.fc45.noarch.rpm ... ripgrep-edit(x86-64) = 0.3.8-1.fc45 ... this means that ripgrep-edit-emacs is not really noarch. Here, we are happy with *any* ripgrep-edit of the same version regardless of the architecture. > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > > Upstream git repo is a bit confusing. I'm not sure if 0.3.8 is the latest > version or is the current development version. Please confirm. > I'll ask the upstream for a new version to avoid the confusion. > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ripgrep- > edit/srpm-unpacked/ripgrep-edit.spec > See: (this test has no URL) > > I don't know if this is a real problem or not, but the spec file name > seems fine to me. I'm equally confused with what's wrong with "ripgrep-edit.spec" name. > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://gitlab.com/aarcange/ripgrep-edit/-/archive/0.3.7/ripgrep-edit-0.3.7. > tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 27179b08a2363ed691bb33eff21b3a0f2536ee070a9af7928398118267af55cd > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 39362dba413b294e4280ef423c1199d0db2a07017bdece5fa5d95991fe3c2d07 > diff -r also reports differences > > [!] This is a problem, please check what's going on. > Yes, I used regenerated tarball instead of raw upstream one in the SRPM, will fix. Thanks a bunch for the review! -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2443772 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202443772%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
