https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990685 Troy Curtis <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Troy Curtis <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Small text nit listed below, but otherwise looks great. Approved! 👍 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Small text nit, there is still a description that is couple of characters too long: > If you are looking for a 'non-blocking' library, this is not the one that you want. ===== 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", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD (3 clause)". 54 files have unknown license. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 30720 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. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Most of the errors stem from the rpmautospec usage, thus false positive. One minor line length warning. [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 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. Tests don't work in mock and thus have to be disabled, but do work on local builds. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). This is due to the SRPM having included the rpmautospec expansions. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: cpp-httplib-devel-0.9.2-922.fc35.x86_64.rpm cpp-httplib-0.9.2-922.fc35.src.rpm cpp-httplib-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C If you are looking for a 'non-blocking' library, this is not the one that you want. cpp-httplib-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag cpp-httplib-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cpp-httplib.src: E: no-changelogname-tag cpp-httplib.src: W: strange-permission cpp-httplib.spec 600 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/yhirose/cpp-httplib/archive/v0.9.2/cpp-httplib-0.9.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfef2587a2aa31c85fb361df71c720be97076f8083e4f3881da8572f6a58054f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfef2587a2aa31c85fb361df71c720be97076f8083e4f3881da8572f6a58054f Requires -------- cpp-httplib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) Provides -------- cpp-httplib-devel: cmake(httplib) cpp-httplib-devel cpp-httplib-devel(x86-64) cpp-httplib-static Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/1990685-cpp-httplib/srpm/cpp-httplib.spec 2021-08-17 22:03:48.444778896 -0400 +++ /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/1990685-cpp-httplib/srpm-unpacked/cpp-httplib.spec 2021-08-17 04:42:24.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,10 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 922; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/yhirose/cpp-httplib %undefine __cmake_in_source_build @@ -4,10 +12,8 @@ # TODO: tests don't work offline in mock %bcond_with tests -# Compiled version in shared library. -# Does not have any so-version, therefore not default %bcond_with compile %if %{without compile} -%undefine __cmake_in_source_build +%undefine __cmake_in_source_build %global debug_package %{nil} %endif @@ -99,3 +105,3 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog + Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1990685 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Python, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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 -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
