Bug 2216484
| Summary: | Review Request: sexpp - S-expressions parser and generator tools | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Remi Collet <fedora> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Petr Pisar <ppisar> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, ppisar |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ppisar:
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: | 2023-09-14 00:31:58 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
Remi Collet
2023-06-21 15:06:47 UTC
And rnp is ready to use this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rnp/c/e1f2beb8136748a9d8d8dbec44c95ef08d4124c2?branch=rawhide Updated to 0.8.6 https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=427bda879b0b91d60da550e995482166cf021b21 Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/plain/sexp.spec?id=427bda879b0b91d60da550e995482166cf021b21 SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/sexp-0.8.6-1.remi.src.rpm Probably have to wait on https://github.com/rnpgp/sexp/issues/45 name conflict libsexp (rnpgp/sexp and mjsottile/sfsexp) Project was renamed from sexp to sexpp, solving the name conflict, so ready for review https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=ea373ce9bb624a069ba173d5cd94008ea54cf8e6 Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/plain/sexpp.spec?id=ea373ce9bb624a069ba173d5cd94008ea54cf8e6 SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/sexpp-0.8.7-1.remi.src.rpm URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-512: 28b93626887da3c1228ddbb9b8566f2d9895f263a1fc31ac2cfa6fc0215cb6a8ec31900255335792bfd580d10f53dd3f88274df83f8c0ddff62ebe35dce7da08) is original. Ok.
Summary verified from README.adoc. Ok.
Description verified from README.adoc. Ok.
License verified from tests/src/primitives-tests.cpp, tests/src/g23-exception-tests.cpp, tests/src/g23-compat-tests.cpp, tests/src/g10-compat-tests.cpp, tests/src/exception-tests.cpp, tests/src/compare-files.cpp, tests/src/baseline-tests.cpp, tests/scripts/tests.sh, tests/include/sexp-tests, src/sexp-simple-string.cpp, src/sexp-output.cpp, src/sexp-object.cpp, src/sexp-main.cpp, src/sexp-input.cpp, src/sexp-error.cpp, src/sexp-depth-manager.cpp, src/sexp-char-defs.cpp, src/ext-key-format.cpp, include/sexpp/sexp.h, include/sexpp/sexp-public.h, include/sexpp/sexp-error.h, include/sexpp/ext-key-format.h, flake.nix, default.nix, codecov.yml, cmake/version.cmake, cmake/sexp-samples-folder.h.in, README.adoc, LICENSE.md, CMakeLists.txt, .github/workflows/nix.yml, .github/workflows/lint.yml, .github/workflows/coverity.yml, .github/workflows/coverage.yml, .github/workflows/codeql.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-rh.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-msys.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-deb.yml.
TODO: Build-require 'coreutils' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:70).
TODO: Build-require 'grep' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:73).
TODO: Build-require 'sed' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:73).
TODO: Pass an explicit -DWITH_SEXP_TESTS=ON/OFF option to %cmake based on 'tests' macro. There is no need to build tests if you are not going to run them.
TODO: Pass explicit -DWITH_SEXP_CLI=ON -DWITH_SANITIZERS=OFF -DWITH_COVERAGE=OFF options to %cmake. That will prevent from an unnoticed change in upstream defaults.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint sexpp.spec ../SRPMS/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-* ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-*
======================================== rpmlint session starts =======================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 8
sexpp.spec:75: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 75)
sexpp.spec:75: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 75)
========= 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ========
TODO: Normalize whitespace in the spec file.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 25584 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/bin/sexpp
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/85
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/85/6042f9ca57991a892f7fbba68986672cfc3ddc -> ../../../../usr/bin/sexpp
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 813 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/man/man1/sexpp.1.gz
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/1b
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/1b/99df56177ea18d3307a7bfcddee0ea992bdb04 -> ../../../../usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0.8.7
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0 -> libsexpp.so.0.8.7
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71080 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0.8.7
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/libsexpp
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1368 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/libsexpp/LICENSE.md
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3270 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/ext-key-format.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2909 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp-error.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1287 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp-public.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17593 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp.h
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so -> libsexpp.so.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 210 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sexpp.pc
File layout and permission are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
1 glibc >= 2.37.9000-14
1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.32)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.38)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39
1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.32)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
1 glibc >= 2.37.9000-14
1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.32)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.38)(64bit)
1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.30)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.32)(64bit)
1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
1 /usr/bin/pkg-config
1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39
1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
Binary requires are Ok.
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
1 sexpp = 0.8.7-1.fc39
1 sexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
1 libsexpp = 0.8.7-1.fc39
1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39
1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit)
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
1 libsexpp-devel = 0.8.7-1.fc39
1 libsexpp-devel(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39
1 pkgconfig(sexpp) = 0.8.7
Binary provides are Ok.
$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-* ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-*
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.
The package builds in Fedora 39 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102780001). Ok.
The package is in line with Fedora and CMake packaging guidelines.
Please consider fixing the TODO items before building this package.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.
Damned, I miss the review
> $ fedpkg request-repo -m no-monitoring -u https://github.com/rnpgp/sexpp -s 'S-expressions parser and generator tools' sexpp 2216484
> Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago
Petr, can you please approve it again?
No problem. The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sexpp Great thanks for the review TODO fixed Spaces: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=bff393b7c33c036a8724895589b1cfecd71ca84a Cmake: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=5a249783c2fb046a50621fdcfda416e365b5b025 SCM requests: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56074 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56075 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56076 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56077 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56078 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56079 FEDORA-EPEL-2023-39eb83c478 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-39eb83c478 FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c 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-2023-8166e85e2c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2023-b7384c7d52 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-b7384c7d52 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b7384c7d52 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2023-39eb83c478 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-2023-39eb83c478 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2023-b7384c7d52 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2023-39eb83c478 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |