https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315886 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry it took me a while to get back to this, but everything looks good now. All comments and suggestions in the original review were addressed. The package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Boost Software License 1.0". 277 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/20241116/2315886-valijson/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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 15474 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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 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. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125950625 [x]: %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 $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: [!]: 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). See: (this test has no URL) Ok: differences are only due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [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: valijson-devel-1.0.3-8.fc42.x86_64.rpm valijson-1.0.3-8.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwed0x6m5')] checks: 32, packages: 2 valijson.src: E: spelling-error ('validator', '%description -l en_US validator -> lavatorial') valijson.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: thirdparty_cleanup.patch valijson-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 valijson-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite/archive/8c3d56df71754e6b1fd4c5e48e93e4047840bbe5/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite-8c3d56df71754e6b1fd4c5e48e93e4047840bbe5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f41b26def5e3a95a883e020145a24125426dd8ddb5a04580ff6950f9c2ff29bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f41b26def5e3a95a883e020145a24125426dd8ddb5a04580ff6950f9c2ff29bd https://github.com/tristanpenman/valijson/archive/v1.0.3/valijson-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0fbd3cd2312b441c6373ee116e9a162c400f9e3cd79f6b32665cdd22fa11ac3f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fbd3cd2312b441c6373ee116e9a162c400f9e3cd79f6b32665cdd22fa11ac3f Requires -------- valijson-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel cmake(jsoncpp) cmake(nlohmann_json) cmake(pocojson) cmake(qt5core) cmake(rapidjson) cmake(yaml-cpp) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) picojson-devel Provides -------- valijson-devel: cmake(valijson) valijson-devel valijson-devel(x86-64) valijson-static Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/20241116/2315886-valijson/srpm/valijson.spec 2024-11-16 08:03:55.372132731 -0500 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/20241116/2315886-valijson/srpm-unpacked/valijson.spec 2024-10-14 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 8; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # header-only library %global debug_package %{nil} @@ -125,2 +135,29 @@ %{_includedir}/%{name}/ %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/ + +%changelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Oct 15 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-8 +- Fix failing tests + +* Tue Oct 15 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-7 +- Implement changes following review + +* Tue Oct 01 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-6 +- Exclude i686 + +* Tue Oct 01 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-5 +- Fix building and running tests + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-4 +- Remove json11 + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-3 +- Prepare for building and running tests + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-2 +- Add dependencies for devel package + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2315886 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315886 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202315886%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
