Spec URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libLunchbox.spec SRPM URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libLunchbox-1.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Lunchbox is C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS abstraction, utility classes and high-performance primitives, such as atomic variables, spin locks and lock-free containers. It is needed by Equalizer.
I already renamed it to libLunchbox. It would be great if upstream could change the project name. I will ask them about it.
This will be non-trivial to review, and I dunno whether I will find enough time this weekend to do everything. How deeply have you reviewed the package already? rpmlint tells: libLunchbox.src: E: description-line-too-long C Lunchbox is C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS abstraction, > Name: libLunchbox > Group: Development/Libraries "System Environment/Libraries" is the group for the run-time library base packages. > License: LGPLv2 It's more than that. Lunchbox-1.4.0/lunchbox/md5/md5.cc and md5.hh : This is a copied MD5 implementation with an own license by RSA Data Security Inc. And it's one not mentioned at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries already. Lunchbox-1.4.0/lunchbox/atomic.h : Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. Lunchbox-1.4.0/lunchbox/indexIterator.h : LGPLv3 Lunchbox-1.4.0/lunchbox/lfVector.h : LGPLv3 Lunchbox-1.4.0/lunchbox/lfVectorIterator.h : LGPLv3 Lunchbox-1.4.0/lunchbox/serializable.h : LGPLv3 Lunchbox-1.4.0/tests/lfVector.cpp : LGPLv3 Lunchbox-1.4.0/tests/servus.cpp : LGPLv3 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification > BuildRequires: cmake, doxygen, graphviz build.log contains a few "could not find …" messages. Are any of them [optional] missing BuildRequires? > %package devel > Requires: pkgconfig, cmake Both should be dropped. There's an automatic dependency on /usr/bin/pkg-config already. And this -devel package certainly does not strictly require cmake, because e.g. it contains a pkgconfig file and can be used without cmake. Feel free to include the cmake directories based on this in the guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function > %package doc > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Separate documentation -doc packages typically don't require the base package. It should be possible to install documentation without having to install a program and all its dependencies. With a total size of just 76716 bytes, the files in this -doc package could stay in the -devel package. > %files > %{_datadir}/%{name} This tree belongs into the -devel package. drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/libLunchbox drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/libLunchbox/CMake -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/libLunchbox/CMake/options.cmake The path is broken afaics after you move the file in the %install section. $ cd Lunchbox-1.4.0 $ grep options.cmake * -R CMake/FindLunchbox.cmake: include("${LUNCHBOX_LIBRARY_DIRS}/../share/Lunchbox/CMake/options.cmake") CMakeLists.txt:install(FILES ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/options.cmake lunchbox/configure.cmake:set(OPTIONS_CMAKE ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/options.cmake)
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #2) Thanks for the comments, I will try to go through them probably during next week and provide new version.
Reply from Stefan regarding the rename to libLunchbox: > Hi Jaroslav, > I've looked into Lunchbox vs. libLunchbox and came to the conclusion that only the package name should change, the rest should stay: > > include/Lunchbox/... > libLunchbox.... > share/Lunchbox/... > > Do you agree? If so, what do I need to do? > > Changing the project name to libLunchbox doesn't make sense to me, since it entails: > > find_package(libLunchbox) > include/libLunchbox/... > liblibLunchbox... > > and so on for consistency. > > > Cheers, > > Stefan. I am +1 for the package name only change. Any comments?
Rest assured, it wouldn't be the first project to do that. Project name "foo" releases library with SONAME libfoo.so.N in tarball "libfoo" with headers in /usr/include/foo (#include <foo/blubb.h>) and using root directories such as /usr/share/foo.
I'm still confused with pkgconfig explicit requires now. And can you update this package to 1.6.0 version? Thanks.
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > I'm still confused with pkgconfig explicit requires now. > It's installing pkgconfig files and the basedir is provided by pkgconfig. > And can you update this package to 1.6.0 version? > I upgraded it to 1.9.1: Spec URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libLunchbox.spec SRPM URL: http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libLunchbox-1.9.1-1.fc20.src.rpm But I am afraid it would require re-packing according to MPI guidelines, will look on it later.
I wondered why the upstream still has its own thread library, instead of using std::thread / boost::thread etc. And indeed the upstream API docs say the Lunchbox classes are deprecated.
This bug has not had an update in a long time. Are you still intending to progress this? As per policy if there is no update this bug will be closed. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
(In reply to James Hogarth from comment #9) > This bug has not had an update in a long time. > > Are you still intending to progress this? > > As per policy if there is no update this bug will be closed. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews Hi, I still want to get it into Fedora. IMHO it's waiting on the reviewer.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > I wondered why the upstream still has its own thread library, instead of > using std::thread / boost::thread etc. > > And indeed the upstream API docs say the Lunchbox classes are deprecated. IIRC it's there mainly for the 'bino' [1] from the rpmfusion [2], which can use 'Equalizer', which IIRC uses 'Lunchbox', from the upstream docs [3]: > Lunchbox is a C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS > abstraction, utility classes and high-performance primitives, such as atomic > variables, spin locks and lock-free containers. It is used as a base library > for Collage and Equalizer. Thus I think this package is still useful. [1] http://bino3d.org/ [2] http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/releases/22/Everything/x86_64/os/bino-1.4.4-6.fc22.x86_64.rpm [3] http://www.equalizergraphics.com/
Christopher do you still want to review this? If not best to unset the assignee and flag so someone else can take over.
It's been over a week with no response from the reviewer to the NeedsInfo flag. Resetting the review flag an unassigning as per policy.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
I am still going to handle it.
Could you provide an updated spec and srpm, so that I can try to review this?
Adding needinfo flag for the reporter, so the review can either progress or be closed automatically in one month.
Rebasing to 1.17.0, the latest released upstream version.
Unfortunately upstream complicates it even more. Now it requires Servus (bug 1972445) and what's worse it's bundling it as a git submodule. I encouraged upstream to add support for building with the system Servus. I could patch it myself, but at first we need Servus to get in.
Tests temporary disabled due to: https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/330
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox-1.17.0-1.fc33.src.rpm I used lunchbox name with lowercase 'l' which seemed better to me. It's bundling some cmake macros from the Lunchbox upstream. Currently I don't know what to do with it, so I bundled them and encouraged upstream to bundle it to the release package. Another variant is to package it to individual package and encourage upstream to add it as a dep (currently upstream consumes it as a submodule). For the bundling probably FESCO exception will be needed. I also opened several upstream bugs, see the comments in the spec.
Jaroslav, Thank you for continuing this effort. For the tests, consider disabling only the problematic test and let others run, either by patching of whatever filtering option the test runner may have. We want to know that everything else is still working even if that single case is having issues. I will take a look at Servus review request.
I started reviewing this. Running fedora-review is waiting for Servus dependency to appear in Rawhide, so full review can only happen after that. But some initial comments: > LICENSE.txt License issues here, just like there were in Servus. This file contains this sentence "See file LGPL.txt for the full license". But that file does not exist. Also, LGPL is a layer on top of GPL, so full text of that is required also. Need to contact upstream here, and possibly add patch the missing licenses if upstream is not active. > # https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/330 > #%%check > #cd %{_vpath_builddir} > #make test If only some test cases fail, patch to disable them and execute the rest. Much better than blindly disabling everything. > %cmake -DCOMMON_DOC_DIR=%{_docdir}/%{name} When I try to build (after installing servus and servus-devel dependencies), I get the following error: > CMake Error at CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:86 (message): > Subproject Servus not found in > /builddir/build/BUILD/Lunchbox-1.17.0/Servus, do: > > cmake -DCLONE_SUBPROJECTS=ON > > to git-clone it automatically. > Call Stack (most recent call first): > CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:148 (add_subproject) > .gitsubprojects:2 (git_subproject) > CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:161 (include) > CMake/common/Common.cmake:161 (include) > CMakeLists.txt:28 (include)
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #23) > I started reviewing this. Running fedora-review is waiting for Servus > dependency to appear in Rawhide, so full review can only happen after that. > But some initial comments: > > > LICENSE.txt > > License issues here, just like there were in Servus. > This file contains this sentence "See file LGPL.txt for the full license". > But that file does not exist. > Also, LGPL is a layer on top of GPL, so full text of that is required also. > Need to contact upstream here, > and possibly add patch the missing licenses if upstream is not active. > https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/331 Updated the spec. > > # https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/330 > > #%%check > > #cd %{_vpath_builddir} > > #make test > > If only some test cases fail, patch to disable them and execute the rest. > Much better than blindly disabling everything. > Re-enabled test-suite. > > %cmake -DCOMMON_DOC_DIR=%{_docdir}/%{name} > > When I try to build (after installing servus and servus-devel dependencies), > I get the following error: > > > CMake Error at CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:86 (message): > > Subproject Servus not found in > > /builddir/build/BUILD/Lunchbox-1.17.0/Servus, do: > > > > cmake -DCLONE_SUBPROJECTS=ON > > > > to git-clone it automatically. > > Call Stack (most recent call first): > > CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:148 (add_subproject) > > .gitsubprojects:2 (git_subproject) > > CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:161 (include) > > CMake/common/Common.cmake:161 (include) > > CMakeLists.txt:28 (include) I cannot reproduce. I am building for rawhide, but it shouldn't matter. It seems the cmake macro cannot find servus-devel files, but I don't know why it doesn't work on your system. It seems there is the same problem with the strange library versioning: https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/332
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox-1.17.0-2.fc33.src.rpm
Thank you, the fixes look good. Since the Servus review looks almost complete, I will wait until that is available in Rawhide. That should fix my build issues and allow running fedora-review.
Now that Servus has been finalized, this review can continue. Some update is needed because of servus.so versioning difficulties, I now get this: CMake Error at /usr/share/Servus/CMake/ServusTargets.cmake:88 (message): The imported target "Servus" references the file "/usr/lib64/libServus.so.1.6.0" but this file does not exist.
Current package does not build in mock on rawhide. CMake Error at CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:86 (message): Subproject Servus not found in /builddir/build/BUILD/Lunchbox-1.17.0/Servus, do: cmake -DCLONE_SUBPROJECTS=ON to git-clone it automatically. Call Stack (most recent call first): CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:148 (add_subproject) .gitsubprojects:2 (git_subproject) CMake/common/SubProject.cmake:161 (include) CMake/common/Common.cmake:161 (include) CMakeLists.txt:28 (include) It seems Servus devel package is not used properly. As Otto mentioned in comment #27.
Multiple problems: one missing dep which got to the chroot during the Servus build, problems related to the SONAME fixes in Servus and failing tests on armv7hl. New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc33.src.rpm
The servus update needed for this barely missed the last compose before mass rebuild. I will wait until the next compose is available for the (hopefully) final review run. I wonder if the failing tests could be disabled only for the architecture where they fail? Just thinking aloud here, I do not see this as a blocker in any way.
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #30) > The servus update needed for this > barely missed the last compose before mass rebuild. > I will wait until the next compose is available > for the (hopefully) final review run. > > I wonder if the failing tests could be disabled > only for the architecture where they fail? > Just thinking aloud here, > I do not see this as a blocker in any way. New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox-1.17.0-4.fc33.src.rpm
It looks almost good. I found just /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-* binaries from main package to be offending FHS. They are architecture dependent executables, I think they should be somewhere under /usr/libexec/Lunchbox/ or similar. Not sure they are useful in main package, I think they should have own subpackage or be part of -devel subpackage. I think /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/ should be moved to devel subpackage too, it would not be useful to possible lunchbox dependent package builds. I think LICENSE.txt and LGPL.txt should be marked as %license, even when they have wrong address. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License, Version 2". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/976793-lunchbox/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: 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 51200 bytes in 5 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]: 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: [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. -- original upstream license is provided too just as %doc [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. [-]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lunchbox-1.17.0-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm lunchbox-devel-1.17.0-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm lunchbox-debuginfo-1.17.0-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm lunchbox-debugsource-1.17.0-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm lunchbox-1.17.0-4.fc35.src.rpm lunchbox.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Lunchbox is C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS abstraction, lunchbox.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-lfVector lunchbox.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-mutex lunchbox.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-rwLock lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/any.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/anySerialization.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/bitOperation.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/buffer.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/clock.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/debug.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/dso.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/file.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/future.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/init.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/intervalSet.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/issue1.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/lfQueue.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/memoryMap.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/monitor.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/mtQueue.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perThread.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/lfVector.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/mutex.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/rwLock.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/pluginFactory.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/refPtr.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/requestHandler.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/result.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/rng.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/string.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/thread.cpp lunchbox.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/threadPool.cpp lunchbox-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation lunchbox.src: E: description-line-too-long C Lunchbox is C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS abstraction, lunchbox.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(eyescale-cmake-common) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 30 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lunchbox-debuginfo-1.17.0-4.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551 https://github.com/Eyescale/CMake/archive/refs/tags/2018.02.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06ae367f70e34e5e5b27fac2296f7bdf33e36d5c016b1545020239fc49e5dd56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06ae367f70e34e5e5b27fac2296f7bdf33e36d5c016b1545020239fc49e5dd56 https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/archive/1.17.0/lunchbox-1.17.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5d5e29ceacef6d024f3a1fa8178ae77a31fe41ebee82b36e76af5c65cd0f353b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5d5e29ceacef6d024f3a1fa8178ae77a31fe41ebee82b36e76af5c65cd0f353b Requires -------- lunchbox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libLunchbox.so.10()(64bit) libServus.so.6()(64bit) libboost_filesystem.so.1.75.0()(64bit) libboost_regex.so.1.75.0()(64bit) libboost_serialization.so.1.75.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.75.0()(64bit) libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.75.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lunchbox-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake libLunchbox.so.10()(64bit) lunchbox(x86-64) pkgconfig lunchbox-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lunchbox-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lunchbox: bundled(eyescale-cmake-common) libLunchbox.so.10()(64bit) lunchbox lunchbox(x86-64) lunchbox-devel: lunchbox-devel lunchbox-devel(x86-64) lunchbox-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libLunchbox.so.1.17.0-1.17.0-4.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) lunchbox-debuginfo lunchbox-debuginfo(x86-64) lunchbox-debugsource: lunchbox-debugsource lunchbox-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 976793 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Python, PHP, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Seems to me whole %{_datadir}/Lunchbox should be moved to devel. I doubt even cmake rules are useful outside devel package.
@pemensik Since you already did so much for the review, would you mind if I passed the reviewer's torch to you? I am still up for completing this, but I do not see the point of duplicating the effort either.
The review bug were not assigned, I just spent a little time on it. If you wish to finish it, feel free to do so. It would be even better because Jaroslav is my colleague and it would be more 'independent' review from you. Feel free to take it yourself. Just shared my opinions on it, no claims on it taken.
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #35) > The review bug were not assigned, I just spent a little time on it. If you > wish to finish it, feel free to do so. It would be even better because > Jaroslav is my colleague and it would be more 'independent' review from you. > Feel free to take it yourself. Just shared my opinions on it, no claims on > it taken. Yes, it has been my intention to review this. I just forgot to set myself as the assignee, I only set the fedora-review flag. So I will continue from here complete this. Thank you for your input! Any further comments are also welcome.
Review taken, here is everything I could spot. 1. > # CMake/common/ittnotify.h is under GPLv2, the rest is LGPL I am not sure if it counts, since it is part of the build script only, and License field should describe the packaged content, not srpm. Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field 2. Looking at licensecheck.txt generated by fedora-review and disregarding the build script, it looks like the actual license is more like this: ( and Boost # lunchbox/atomic.h, lunchbox/any.h and LGPLv2 # most files and LGPLv3 # some files, like any.cpp and lfVector.h ) According to GPL Compatibility Matrix from Fedora Wiki [1] LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 mix only by "converting to GPLv3". I suppose the correct action would then be to mark the license as "Boost and GPLv3", note somewhere that the conversion option was used (I am not aware of specific instructions on how to do this) and include GPLv3 license text as %license. The Boost license is already included in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.txt, so that should be installed as %license. Additionally, lunchbox/test.h is under BSD. It is a test runner, contains its license in the file header and is not compiled during the build. As long as it goes to devel package or is simply not installed, its license is ok. Getting licensing right is messy as usual, there may well be something we have missed. Let us try to get as close to reality as possible, even if upstream situation is quite unclear. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix 3. > Provides: bundled(eyescale-cmake-common) Use versioned Provides. Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling 4. > %{_libdir}/libLunchbox.so.1* Globbing that hides important parts of the shared object file name should not be used. Because the found suffixes here are 1.17.0 and 10.0.0, it would be better to select both of these separately. Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files 5. > Requires: pkgconfig > Requires: cmake I do not think these are needed. The build does not produce a pkgconfig file and CMake files are installed under self-owner directory %{_datadir}/Lunchbox 6. I agree Petr regarding the contents of /usr/share/Lunchbox, those should not go to the binary package. > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxConfig.cmake > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxConfigVersion.cmake > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxTargets-debug.cmake > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxTargets.cmake > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/options.cmake I am not familiar enough with CMake builds in Fedora to say how cmake scripts should be packaged (the CMake guidelines should be extended to cover this) but assuming that the directory structure is acceptable these should be package in the -devel package. > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-lfVector > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-mutex > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-rwLock Test executables, should go to -devel if packaged at all. Also, binaries have no place in %{_datadir}, rpmlint complains about this. So if they are package in any package, they should go to %{_bindir}. > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/any.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/anySerialization.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/buffer.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/clock.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/debug.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/dso.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/file.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/future.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/init.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/issue1.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/lfQueue.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/memoryMap.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/monitor.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/mtQueue.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perThread.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/lfVector.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/mutex.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/rwLock.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/pluginFactory.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/refPtr.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/requestHandler.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/rng.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/thread.cpp > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/threadPool.cpp Test source files. I do not see any reason to package these, they are already available in srpm and it is not usual to package sources in -devel. 7. > $ rpm -q --requires ./review-lunchbox/results/lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.75.0()(64bit) As this package is not a test runner or similar tool there should be no unit test framework dependencies. Probably this is solved when all the test related files are moved to -devel or removed from installation. 8. I would consider removing directory pthreads in %prep as it contains a shady tarball apprently only needed for Windows builds. This is not blocking, because as far as I can tell, there is nothing that is strictly disallowed there. Just a general suggestion. 9. Man pages are absent. There is a SHOULD in the guidelines about trying to get them added. My understanding is that upstream does not really respond to queries so in my opinion, there is no need to take action. Of course it is better if you do ask upstream about it. Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages 10. > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > lunchbox-devel-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > lunchbox-debuginfo-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > lunchbox-debugsource-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.src.rpm > lunchbox.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Lunchbox is C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS abstraction, Please shorten it.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
If you still wish to complete this, just reopen the bug when you have had time to look at my comments. I can still complete the review.
Reopening, it's still worked on.
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #37) > Review taken, here is everything I could spot. > > 1. > > # CMake/common/ittnotify.h is under GPLv2, the rest is LGPL > I am not sure if it counts, since it is part of the build script only, > and License field should describe the packaged content, not srpm. > Reference: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field > Upstream ticket: https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/331 The file is dual licensed, it seems upstream chose BSD and released the result under LGPL. > 2. > Looking at licensecheck.txt generated by fedora-review > and disregarding the build script, > it looks like the actual license is more like this: > > ( > and Boost # lunchbox/atomic.h, lunchbox/any.h > and LGPLv2 # most files > and LGPLv3 # some files, like any.cpp and lfVector.h > ) > > According to GPL Compatibility Matrix from Fedora Wiki [1] > LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 mix only by "converting to GPLv3". > I suppose the correct action would then be > to mark the license as "Boost and GPLv3", > note somewhere that the conversion option was used > (I am not aware of specific instructions on how to do this) > and include GPLv3 license text as %license. > The Boost license is already included in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.txt, > so that should be installed as %license. > Didn't you think "Boost and LGPLv3"? I asked upstream about the status: https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/331 > Additionally, lunchbox/test.h is under BSD. > It is a test runner, > contains its license in the file header > and is not compiled during the build. > As long as it goes to devel package or is simply not installed, > its license is ok. > IMHO the resulting work can be released under LGPL. > 3. > > Provides: bundled(eyescale-cmake-common) > > Use versioned Provides. > Reference: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling > Fixed. > 4. > > %{_libdir}/libLunchbox.so.1* > Globbing that hides important parts of the shared object file name should > not be used. > Because the found suffixes here are 1.17.0 and 10.0.0, > it would be better to select both of these separately. > Reference: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_listing_shared_library_files > Hopefully fixed. > 5. > > Requires: pkgconfig > > Requires: cmake > > I do not think these are needed. > The build does not produce a pkgconfig file > and CMake files are installed under self-owner directory %{_datadir}/Lunchbox > Dropped. > 6. > I agree Petr regarding the contents of /usr/share/Lunchbox, > those should not go to the binary package. > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxConfig.cmake > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxConfigVersion.cmake > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxTargets-debug.cmake > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxTargets.cmake > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/options.cmake > > I am not familiar enough with CMake builds in Fedora > to say how cmake scripts should be packaged > (the CMake guidelines should be extended to cover this) > but assuming that the directory structure is acceptable > these should be package in the -devel package. > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-lfVector > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-mutex > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-rwLock > > Test executables, should go to -devel > if packaged at all. > Also, binaries have no place in %{_datadir}, > rpmlint complains about this. > So if they are package in any package, > they should go to %{_bindir}. > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/any.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/anySerialization.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/buffer.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/clock.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/debug.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/dso.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/file.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/future.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/init.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/issue1.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/lfQueue.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/memoryMap.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/monitor.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/mtQueue.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perThread.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/lfVector.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/mutex.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/rwLock.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/pluginFactory.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/refPtr.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/requestHandler.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/rng.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/thread.cpp > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/threadPool.cpp > > Test source files. > I do not see any reason to package these, > they are already available in srpm > and it is not usual to package sources in -devel. > Hopefully fixed. > 7. > > $ rpm -q --requires ./review-lunchbox/results/lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.75.0()(64bit) > > As this package is not a test runner or similar tool > there should be no unit test framework dependencies. > Probably this is solved when all the test related files > are moved to -devel or removed from installation. > Moved to devel, hopefully OK. > 8. > I would consider removing directory pthreads in %prep > as it contains a shady tarball > apprently only needed for Windows builds. > This is not blocking, > because as far as I can tell, > there is nothing that is strictly disallowed there. > Just a general suggestion. > Dropped > 9. > Man pages are absent. > There is a SHOULD in the guidelines about trying to get them added. > My understanding is that upstream does not really respond to queries > so in my opinion, there is no need to take action. > Of course it is better if you do ask upstream about it. > Reference: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages > Just nice to have. > 10. > > Rpmlint > > ------- > > Checking: lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > lunchbox-devel-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > lunchbox-debuginfo-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > lunchbox-debugsource-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.src.rpm > > lunchbox.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Lunchbox is C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS abstraction, > > Please shorten it. > Reformatted.
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox-1.17.0-5.fc33.src.rpm
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #41) Thank you, Apart from the license related issues, everything is reported earlier is solved now. There is one new issue: > Note: Could not download Source3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old- > licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt I think it should be: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt The licensing is still bothering me, so I commented on the upstream issue. The problems are minor, related to how the licenses are formally written rather than real doubt on if the authors of the involved code would actually object to using their code in Fedora. Still, from my point of view, things are not quite right, so I cannot accept this package yet. I have noticed that there is some deviation within Fedora, so if you think my requests are not valid, I suggest you ask for a second opinion — it may be that I am wrong here. > (In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #37) > > Review taken, here is everything I could spot. > > > > 1. > > > # CMake/common/ittnotify.h is under GPLv2, the rest is LGPL > > I am not sure if it counts, since it is part of the build script only, > > and License field should describe the packaged content, not srpm. > > Reference: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field > > > Upstream ticket: > https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/331 > > The file is dual licensed, it seems upstream chose BSD and released the > result under LGPL. I commented in the upstream ticket. > > 2. > > Looking at licensecheck.txt generated by fedora-review > > and disregarding the build script, > > it looks like the actual license is more like this: > > > > ( > > and Boost # lunchbox/atomic.h, lunchbox/any.h > > and LGPLv2 # most files > > and LGPLv3 # some files, like any.cpp and lfVector.h > > ) > > > > According to GPL Compatibility Matrix from Fedora Wiki [1] > > LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 mix only by "converting to GPLv3". > > I suppose the correct action would then be > > to mark the license as "Boost and GPLv3", > > note somewhere that the conversion option was used > > (I am not aware of specific instructions on how to do this) > > and include GPLv3 license text as %license. > > The Boost license is already included in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.txt, > > so that should be installed as %license. > > > Didn't you think "Boost and LGPLv3"? > > I asked upstream about the status: > https://github.com/Eyescale/Lunchbox/issues/331 I commented in the upstream ticket. > > Additionally, lunchbox/test.h is under BSD. > > It is a test runner, > > contains its license in the file header > > and is not compiled during the build. > > As long as it goes to devel package or is simply not installed, > > its license is ok. > > > IMHO the resulting work can be released under LGPL. Yes, there is nothing in BSD that conflicts with conditions in LGPL. But the original BSD conditions still have to be fulfilled. It is a very short license, basically *only* asking you to include the license. Anyhow, there is nothing to fix here. The said file is not used in compilation of installed binaries and when installed in .h form, it includes the license in the file itself. > > 3. > > > Provides: bundled(eyescale-cmake-common) > > > > Use versioned Provides. > > Reference: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling > > > Fixed. OK > > 4. > > > %{_libdir}/libLunchbox.so.1* > > Globbing that hides important parts of the shared object file name should > > not be used. > > Because the found suffixes here are 1.17.0 and 10.0.0, > > it would be better to select both of these separately. > > Reference: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > #_listing_shared_library_files > > > Hopefully fixed. OK > > 5. > > > Requires: pkgconfig > > > Requires: cmake > > > > I do not think these are needed. > > The build does not produce a pkgconfig file > > and CMake files are installed under self-owner directory %{_datadir}/Lunchbox > > > Dropped. OK > > 6. > > I agree Petr regarding the contents of /usr/share/Lunchbox, > > those should not go to the binary package. > > > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxConfig.cmake > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxConfigVersion.cmake > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxTargets-debug.cmake > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/LunchboxTargets.cmake > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/CMake/options.cmake > > > > I am not familiar enough with CMake builds in Fedora > > to say how cmake scripts should be packaged > > (the CMake guidelines should be extended to cover this) > > but assuming that the directory structure is acceptable > > these should be package in the -devel package. > > > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-lfVector > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-mutex > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/benchmarks/perf-rwLock > > > > Test executables, should go to -devel > > if packaged at all. > > Also, binaries have no place in %{_datadir}, > > rpmlint complains about this. > > So if they are package in any package, > > they should go to %{_bindir}. > > > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/any.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/anySerialization.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/buffer.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/clock.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/debug.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/dso.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/file.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/future.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/init.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/issue1.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/lfQueue.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/memoryMap.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/monitor.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/mtQueue.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perThread.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/lfVector.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/mutex.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/perf/rwLock.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/pluginFactory.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/refPtr.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/requestHandler.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/rng.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/thread.cpp > > > /usr/share/Lunchbox/tests/threadPool.cpp > > > > Test source files. > > I do not see any reason to package these, > > they are already available in srpm > > and it is not usual to package sources in -devel. > > > Hopefully fixed. OK > > 7. > > > $ rpm -q --requires ./review-lunchbox/results/lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > > libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.75.0()(64bit) > > > > As this package is not a test runner or similar tool > > there should be no unit test framework dependencies. > > Probably this is solved when all the test related files > > are moved to -devel or removed from installation. > > > Moved to devel, hopefully OK. OK > > 8. > > I would consider removing directory pthreads in %prep > > as it contains a shady tarball > > apprently only needed for Windows builds. > > This is not blocking, > > because as far as I can tell, > > there is nothing that is strictly disallowed there. > > Just a general suggestion. > > > Dropped OK > > 9. > > Man pages are absent. > > There is a SHOULD in the guidelines about trying to get them added. > > My understanding is that upstream does not really respond to queries > > so in my opinion, there is no need to take action. > > Of course it is better if you do ask upstream about it. > > Reference: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages > > > Just nice to have. OK > > 10. > > > Rpmlint > > > ------- > > > Checking: lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > > lunchbox-devel-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > > lunchbox-debuginfo-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > > lunchbox-debugsource-1.17.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm > > > lunchbox-1.17.0-3.fc35.src.rpm > > > lunchbox.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Lunchbox is C++ library for multi-threaded programming, providing OS abstraction, > > > > Please shorten it. > > > Reformatted. OK
(In reply to Otto Urpelainen from comment #43) > There is one new issue: > > > Note: Could not download Source3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old- > > licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt > > I think it should be: > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt > Typo :), fixed. Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/lunchbox/lunchbox-1.17.0-6.fc33.src.rpm
Regarding licensing, I think it's not blocker, but waiting for upstream.
Thank you for the update. The licensing questions are the only ones left. Let's hope upstream comments soon.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
Ok, it seems clear that upstream is not going to comment on the licenses. So, what has been done here is the best that can be done downstream. Package approved, sorry this took so long!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lunchbox
FEDORA-2022-e675ce9234 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e675ce9234
FEDORA-2022-e675ce9234 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.