https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484 Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- URL and Source0 addresses are Ok. Source0 archive (SHA-512: 28b93626887da3c1228ddbb9b8566f2d9895f263a1fc31ac2cfa6fc0215cb6a8ec31900255335792bfd580d10f53dd3f88274df83f8c0ddff62ebe35dce7da08) is original. Ok. Summary verified from README.adoc. Ok. Description verified from README.adoc. Ok. License verified from tests/src/primitives-tests.cpp, tests/src/g23-exception-tests.cpp, tests/src/g23-compat-tests.cpp, tests/src/g10-compat-tests.cpp, tests/src/exception-tests.cpp, tests/src/compare-files.cpp, tests/src/baseline-tests.cpp, tests/scripts/tests.sh, tests/include/sexp-tests, src/sexp-simple-string.cpp, src/sexp-output.cpp, src/sexp-object.cpp, src/sexp-main.cpp, src/sexp-input.cpp, src/sexp-error.cpp, src/sexp-depth-manager.cpp, src/sexp-char-defs.cpp, src/ext-key-format.cpp, include/sexpp/sexp.h, include/sexpp/sexp-public.h, include/sexpp/sexp-error.h, include/sexpp/ext-key-format.h, flake.nix, default.nix, codecov.yml, cmake/version.cmake, cmake/sexp-samples-folder.h.in, README.adoc, LICENSE.md, CMakeLists.txt, .github/workflows/nix.yml, .github/workflows/lint.yml, .github/workflows/coverity.yml, .github/workflows/coverage.yml, .github/workflows/codeql.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-rh.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-msys.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-deb.yml. TODO: Build-require 'coreutils' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:70). TODO: Build-require 'grep' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:73). TODO: Build-require 'sed' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:73). TODO: Pass an explicit -DWITH_SEXP_TESTS=ON/OFF option to %cmake based on 'tests' macro. There is no need to build tests if you are not going to run them. TODO: Pass explicit -DWITH_SEXP_CLI=ON -DWITH_SANITIZERS=OFF -DWITH_COVERAGE=OFF options to %cmake. That will prevent from an unnoticed change in upstream defaults. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint sexpp.spec ../SRPMS/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-* ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-* ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 8 sexpp.spec:75: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 75) sexpp.spec:75: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 75) ========= 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ======== TODO: Normalize whitespace in the spec file. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 25584 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/bin/sexpp drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/85 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/85/6042f9ca57991a892f7fbba68986672cfc3ddc -> ../../../../usr/bin/sexpp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 813 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/man/man1/sexpp.1.gz $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/1b lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/1b/99df56177ea18d3307a7bfcddee0ea992bdb04 -> ../../../../usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0.8.7 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0 -> libsexpp.so.0.8.7 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71080 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0.8.7 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/libsexpp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1368 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/libsexpp/LICENSE.md $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3270 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/ext-key-format.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2909 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp-error.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1287 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp-public.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17593 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp.h lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so -> libsexpp.so.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 210 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sexpp.pc File layout and permission are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 glibc >= 2.37.9000-14 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.32)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.38)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) 1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.32)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 glibc >= 2.37.9000-14 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.32)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.38)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.30)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.32)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 /usr/bin/pkg-config 1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 sexpp = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 sexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libsexpp = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit) $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libsexpp-devel = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp-devel(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 pkgconfig(sexpp) = 0.8.7 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-* ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-* Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok. The package builds in Fedora 39 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102780001). Ok. The package is in line with Fedora and CMake packaging guidelines. Please consider fixing the TODO items before building this package. Resolution: Package APPROVED. -- 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=2216484 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202216484%23c6 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
