Bug 2027121
| Summary: | Review Request: casc - Colored Abstract Simplicial Complex (CASC) Library | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ben Beasley <code> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Major Hayden 🤠 <mhayden> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | mhayden, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mhayden:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-05-09 15:07:03 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: | |||
|
Description
Ben Beasley
2021-11-28 20:08:55 UTC
Updated with a noarch -devel package as now permitted by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_use_noarch_only_in_subpackages. Koji scratch builds: F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83471541 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83471543 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83471545 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83471546 New links in that last comment should have been: Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220228/casc.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220228/casc-1.0.5-1.fc35.src.rpm @mhayden, is this in your comfort zone? It’s a mostly-straightforward C++ header-only library. Thanks, Ben! Repo requested. Oh boy, it would be nice if I didn't get my tickets crossed. 🤦🏻♂️ I am reviewing this one now. Thanks! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: casc-doc : /usr/share/doc/casc- doc/examples/surfacemesh/include/SurfaceMesh.h casc-doc : /usr/share/doc/casc-doc/examples/surfacemesh/include/Vertex.h casc-doc : /usr/share/doc/casc-doc/examples/surfacemesh/include/tensor.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages Ignoring this one since the package only has headers. 🙃 - Using the forgemeta macros might make things a little easier for maintenance, but it's not required. - This one looks good to go! 🎉 ✅ ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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 v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/casc/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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 casc- devel [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]: 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]: 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ctlee/casc/archive/v1.0.5/casc-1.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e98927a5a1934cb2cd9351d30629135d7d7ad231c820fb4eaa0e94c99ce6cef3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e98927a5a1934cb2cd9351d30629135d7d7ad231c820fb4eaa0e94c99ce6cef3 Requires -------- casc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): casc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- casc-devel: casc-devel casc-devel(x86-64) casc-static casc-doc: casc-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name casc --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, fonts, Python, R, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Thanks! Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/44256 My claim with the header files is the fedora-review warning is targeted at incorrectly-packaged API headers, which these are not; instead, they are correctly in the documentation package because they are part of a complete example in source code form. Review bugs need to be assigned before making a SCM request. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/44256 Thanks for fixing the assignment, Ben. 🤦🏻♂️ I think I saw the NEEDINFO and assumed it was assigned. Hooray for Fridays! (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/casc FEDORA-2022-f1d99959fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f1d99959fe FEDORA-2022-f1d99959fe has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2022-214afd61a5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-214afd61a5 FEDORA-2022-20cb223a0e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-20cb223a0e FEDORA-2022-20cb223a0e has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-20cb223a0e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-20cb223a0e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2022-214afd61a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-214afd61a5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-214afd61a5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2022-110ea5906c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-110ea5906c FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1fe6cbd824 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1fe6cbd824 FEDORA-2022-110ea5906c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-110ea5906c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-110ea5906c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1fe6cbd824 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1fe6cbd824 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2022-214afd61a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2022-20cb223a0e has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2022-110ea5906c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1fe6cbd824 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |