Bug 1896988

Taking this review.

>   -DPACKAGE_VERSION={version} \
>   -DSO_VERSION={version}

I think you mean "%{version}" here?

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
> >   -DPACKAGE_VERSION={version} \
> >   -DSO_VERSION={version}
> 
> I think you mean "%{version}" here?

oh, silly me. I commented them out in an interim build (and removed the % to fix the warnings about comments having macros) to check that the package builds fine when not overriding versions, and... didn't uncomment them properly

spec and SRPM updated

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== 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", "Expat License", "Apache License 2.0",
     "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 156 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ngompa/1896988-fbzmq/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 12 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: fbzmq-static.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fbzmq-
     static
[x]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %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 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: fbzmq-2020.11.09.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fbzmq-devel-2020.11.09.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fbzmq-static-2020.11.09.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fbzmq-debuginfo-2020.11.09.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fbzmq-debugsource-2020.11.09.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          fbzmq-2020.11.09.00-1.fc34.src.rpm
fbzmq.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libzmq -> libel
fbzmq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libzmq -> libel
fbzmq-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
fbzmq.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libzmq -> libel
fbzmq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libzmq -> libel
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fbzmq-debuginfo-2020.11.09.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
fbzmq-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
fbzmq.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libzmq -> libel
fbzmq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libzmq -> libel
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/facebook/fbzmq/archive/v2020.11.09.00/fbzmq-2020.11.09.00.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4b4cb99ce983051c13617efcbf8f7bc5ba832e6c25516ef5cbe218e55ec4202f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b4cb99ce983051c13617efcbf8f7bc5ba832e6c25516ef5cbe218e55ec4202f


Requires
--------
fbzmq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libboost_context.so.1.73.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdouble-conversion.so.3()(64bit)
    libfolly.so.2020.11.09.00()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libglog.so.0()(64bit)
    libmonitor_cpp2.so.2020.11.09.00()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libsodium.so.23()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libthriftmetadata.so.2020.11.9.0()(64bit)
    libthriftprotocol.so.2020.11.9.0()(64bit)
    libzmq.so.5()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

fbzmq-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    fbzmq(x86-64)
    libfbzmq.so.2020.11.09.00()(64bit)
    libmonitor_cpp2.so.2020.11.09.00()(64bit)

fbzmq-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    fbzmq-devel(x86-64)

fbzmq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

fbzmq-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
fbzmq:
    fbzmq
    fbzmq(x86-64)
    libfbzmq.so.2020.11.09.00()(64bit)
    libmonitor_cpp2.so.2020.11.09.00()(64bit)

fbzmq-devel:
    cmake(fbzmq)
    fbzmq-devel
    fbzmq-devel(x86-64)

fbzmq-static:
    cmake(fbzmq)
    fbzmq-static
    fbzmq-static(x86-64)

fbzmq-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    fbzmq-debuginfo
    fbzmq-debuginfo(x86-64)

fbzmq-debugsource:
    fbzmq-debugsource
    fbzmq-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1896988 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Python, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, R, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Everything looks fine to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Thanks Neal!

$ fedpkg request-repo fbzmq 1896988   
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30725

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fbzmq

FEDORA-2020-fd7b7bf8c8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fd7b7bf8c8

FEDORA-2020-10c85632d9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10c85632d9

FEDORA-2020-10c85632d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-10c85632d9`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10c85632d9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-fd7b7bf8c8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-fd7b7bf8c8`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fd7b7bf8c8

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-fd7b7bf8c8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-10c85632d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.