Bug 1440481
| Summary: | Review Request: mapbox-variant - A header-only alternative to boost::variant for C++11 and C++14 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tom Hughes <tom> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, panemade |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-05-08 14:21:07 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1440489 | ||
|
Description
Tom Hughes
2017-04-09 10:38:10 UTC
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18876843 Turns out there is a 1.1.5 tagged: Spec URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//mapbox-variant.spec SRPM URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//mapbox-variant-1.1.5-1.fc25.src.rpm koji scratch build failed while compilation -> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19385357 Hmm it did build before but the logs are gone now... Did somebody change the default compiler flags or something? Ah upstream has a -Werror I think and I'm guessing the compiler has changed and has a new warning. New build that removes -Werror (and -march=native so it will compile on ppc) here: Spec URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//mapbox-variant.spec SRPM URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc25.src.rpm and koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19385496 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ==> This is okay - If possible add a line specifying which files are using Boost license and which are using BSD license. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSL (v1.0)", "*No copyright* BSL", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1440481-mapbox-variant/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. [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: mapbox-variant-devel-1.1.5-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc27.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- mapbox-variant-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mapbox-variant-devel: mapbox-variant-devel mapbox-variant-devel(x86-64) mapbox-variant-static Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mapbox/variant/archive/v1.1.5/mapbox-variant-1.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 669f195d3d4fee6bd3ba5b847c9b0ba0c0186b28c11047f2d07fb9319e9a51f4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 669f195d3d4fee6bd3ba5b847c9b0ba0c0186b28c11047f2d07fb9319e9a51f4 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1440481 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 APPROVED. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/mapbox-variant wagyu-0.4.2-1.fc26 geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc26 mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f4c5f09cd5 geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc25 mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1a0090d6c8 geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc25, mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1a0090d6c8 geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc26, mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc26, wagyu-0.4.2-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f4c5f09cd5 geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc26, mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc26, wagyu-0.4.2-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc25, mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |