https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2446035
Bug ID: 2446035
Summary: Review Request for new Package: pva-base
Product: Fedora
Version: 42
Hardware: All
URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mschwarz/pva/b
uild/10207453/
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: low
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
QA Contact: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Fedora Releases: i hope for *
Known Issues:
readme.md in conf.d : required for context information regarding config.
vosk-api-devel dependency: maintainer for vosk made a naming mistake for this
package. [email protected] is informed and promised to fix it.
jars in SRPM: yes are deleted in %build
This package is noarch and should be treated by koji as such later on. If you
see an upcoming problem pls advise.
Info: The package base was deployed successfully to real production system
today. It's working \o/
Notes:
- no big docs
- no devel package required
- pure java, with a sparkle of python for trayicons
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
- 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.
Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools
(jpackage-utils)
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for
Fedora versions >= 21
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
License 2.0 and/or GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later",
"*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 170 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/pva-
base/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 49460 bytes in 18 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
Maven:
[ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: 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]: 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.
Java:
[ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pva-base-0^20260310git0512938-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
pva-base-0^20260310git0512938-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8x8xh604')]
checks: 32, packages: 2
pva-base.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pva/conf.d/README.md
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ai.py
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chatgpt
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f5tts
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f5tts.py
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gsay
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msay
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary piper
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary psay
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary recall-pva
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary samsungtts
pva-base.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary say
pva-base.spec: W: no-%check-section
pva-base.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0^20260310git0512938
['0^20260310git0512938-1.fc42', '0^20260310git0512938-1']
pva-base.noarch: E: devel-dependency vosk-api-devel
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings, 6 filtered, 1
badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
checks: 32, packages: 1
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.0 s
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "pva-base".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Cyborgscode/Personal-Voice-Assistent/archive/refs/heads/main.zip
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
0674c3024a3d81233cfef6224a1ebb659d9f1c4171394bf13a4ce86e1cd2c314
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0674c3024a3d81233cfef6224a1ebb659d9f1c4171394bf13a4ce86e1cd2c314
Requires
--------
pva-base (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/bash
/usr/bin/python3
config(pva-base)
curl
dbus-tools
espeak
ffmpeg
gtts
jakarta-activation
jakarta-activation1
jakarta-mail
jakarta-mail1
java-headless
jna
opencv-java
openssl
sox
vosk-api-devel
xdotool
Provides
--------
pva-base:
application()
application(PVA.desktop)
application(pva-shutdown.desktop)
config(pva-base)
pva-base
Jar and class files in source
-----------------------------
./pva-base-0_20260310git0512938-build/Personal-Voice-Assistent-main/lib/jna-5.18.1.jar
./pva-base-0_20260310git0512938-build/Personal-Voice-Assistent-main/lib/javax.mail-1.6.2.jar
./pva-base-0_20260310git0512938-build/Personal-Voice-Assistent-main/lib/javax.activation-1.2.0.jar
./pva-base-0_20260310git0512938-build/Personal-Voice-Assistent-main/lib/PLACEHOLDER-
sqlite-jdbc-3.51.1.0.jar
Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name
pva-base --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-42-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, R, fonts, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell,
C/C++
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Reproducible: Always
Additional Information:
Sponser: [email protected]
--
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=2446035
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202446035%23c0
--
_______________________________________________
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
