Bug 2030549

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79742906

A clean package. I have only one nit-pick, below:

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
  (OK: rpmautospec)

- I think the sharing of %{_includedir}/tsl with other libraries authored by
  https://github.com/Tessil/ (Thibaut Goetghebuer-Planchon) should be made
  explicit. Please change:

    %{_includedir}/tsl

  to

    # Directory shared with other libraries by the same author, e.g. robin-map
    %dir %{_includedir}/tsl
    %{_includedir}/tsl/sparse_*.h

  Since the directory is shared, listing files more explicitly as suggested
  above is also helpful to understand what the package is installing.

===== Notes (no change required) =====

- Consider keeping an eye on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1141.
  If it is approved, you should be able to add

    BuildArch:      noarch

  to the -devel subpackage.

===== 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2030549-tsl-sparse-map/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/tsl(robin-map-
     devel)

     Directory sharing is acceptable, but please see Issues for a suggestion to
     improve clarity and obviousness.

[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.

     Header-only package.

[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 30720 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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.

     (based on tests passing)

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Tessil/sparse-map/archive/v0.6.2/sparse-map-0.6.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7020c21e8752e59d72e37456cd80000e18671c803890a3e55ae36b295eba99f6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7020c21e8752e59d72e37456cd80000e18671c803890a3e55ae36b295eba99f6


Requires
--------
tsl-sparse-map-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem



Provides
--------
tsl-sparse-map-devel:
    cmake(tsl-sparse-map)
    tsl-sparse-map-devel
    tsl-sparse-map-devel(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2030549
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 2

tsl-sparse-map.spec:55: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Davide is on vacation, and asked me to take over to unblock the package we need that depends on this.

Nit addressed in:

Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libs/tsl-sparse-map.spec
SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libs/tsl-sparse-map-0.6.2-1.fc35.src.rpm

Thanks! Approved by inspection of the spec file diff:

--- srpm-unpacked/tsl-sparse-map.spec   2021-12-09 00:54:20.000000000 -0500
+++ 2030549-tsl-sparse-map/srpm-unpacked/tsl-sparse-map.spec    2021-12-15 19:50:20.000000000 -0500
@@ -48,7 +48,9 @@
 %files devel
 %license LICENSE
 %doc README.md
-%{_includedir}/tsl
+# Directory shared with other libraries by the same author, e.g. robin-map
+%dir %{_includedir}/tsl
+%{_includedir}/tsl/sparse_*.h
 %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}
 
 %changelog

Note that the original submitter (Davide) still has to request the repo. Is that a problem?

Thanks! Not a problem, I think he'll be around but worst case I can just clone this review ticket and get another review

Thanks!

Thanks!

$ fedpkg request-repo tsl-sparse-map 2030549
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39676

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

Thanks! Branches requested for F34 and F35

tsl-sparse-map on  rawhide [⇡] 
❯ fedpkg request-branch --all-releases                                                         
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39787
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39788

FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5

FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c

FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22 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-2021-18c0cd3f22 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22

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

FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5 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-2021-7b9391e1c5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c 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-2021-d1d17f223c

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.