Bug 2229282

Summary: Review Request: yosyshq-abc - Sequential logic synthesis and formal verification (replacement for abc-* fedora package)
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Gabriel Somlo <somlo>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jerry James <loganjerry>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: loganjerry, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: loganjerry: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://github.com/YosysHQ/%{prjname}
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-08-18 01:58:46 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 Gabriel Somlo 2023-08-04 18:32:22 UTC 
Spec URL: http://mirror.ini.cmu.edu/yosyshq-abc/yosyshq-abc.spec
SRPM URL: http://mirror.ini.cmu.edu/yosyshq-abc/yosyshq-abc-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.src.rpm
Description:
ABC is a growing software system for synthesis and verification of
binary sequential logic circuits appearing in synchronous hardware
designs.  ABC combines scalable logic optimization based on And-Inverter
Graphs (AIGs), optimal-delay DAG-based technology mapping for look-up
tables and standard cells, and innovative algorithms for sequential
synthesis and verification.

ABC provides an experimental implementation of these algorithms and a
programming environment for building similar applications.  Future
development will focus on improving the algorithms and making most of
the packages stand-alone.  This will allow the user to customize ABC for
their needs as if it were a toolbox rather than a complete tool.

Fedora Account System Username: somlo

NOTE: this package replaces (obsoletes) github.com/berkeley-abc/abc,
currently packaged as `abc-1.01-40.git20230708` in rawhide and f38.
Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-08-04 18:45:56 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6241772
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2229282-yosyshq-abc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06241772-yosyshq-abc/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Comment 2 Jerry James 2023-08-04 22:52:45 UTC 
I will take this review.
Comment 3 Jerry James 2023-08-04 23:36:47 UTC 
The Obsoletes are correct, but the provides should be this for the main package:

  Provides: %{prjname} = %{version}-%{release}

and similarly for the devel subpackage:

  Provides: %{prjname}-devel = %{version}-%{release}

Otherwise, everything looks good.  Are you planning to build this for Rawhide only, or also for F37 or F38?

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

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

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "MIT (old)", "BSD 3-Clause License",
     "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause
     License". 1588 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2229282-yosyshq-abc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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 9112 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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]: 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: yosyshq-abc-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          yosyshq-abc-libs-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          yosyshq-abc-devel-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          yosyshq-abc-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          yosyshq-abc-debugsource-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          yosyshq-abc-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.src.rpm
================================================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_uf4n8i1')]
checks: 31, packages: 6

yosyshq-abc.spec:83: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(glucose)
yosyshq-abc.spec:85: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(minisat2)
yosyshq-abc.spec:87: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(satoko)
yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/Constants.h /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/Constants.h
yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/IntTypes.h /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/IntTypes.h
yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/pstdint.h /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/pstdint.h
================= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s =================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: yosyshq-abc-libs-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          yosyshq-abc-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
================================================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplcmidgrm')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 6

yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/Constants.h /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/Constants.h
yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/IntTypes.h /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/IntTypes.h
yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/pstdint.h /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/pstdint.h
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/YosysHQ/abc/archive/bb64142b07794ee685494564471e67365a093710/abc-bb64142.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : de98237d4d9329b0b0b8b3dca5f741ac8541974cf88aaa8775138ba9d6f29545
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de98237d4d9329b0b0b8b3dca5f741ac8541974cf88aaa8775138ba9d6f29545


Requires
--------
yosyshq-abc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libabc.so.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64)

yosyshq-abc-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibc
    libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libreadline.so.8()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

yosyshq-abc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libabc.so.0()(64bit)
    yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64)

yosyshq-abc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

yosyshq-abc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
yosyshq-abc:
    abc
    yosyshq-abc
    yosyshq-abc(x86-64)

yosyshq-abc-libs:
    abc-libs
    bundled(cudd)
    bundled(glucose)
    bundled(minisat2)
    bundled(satoko)
    libabc.so.0()(64bit)
    yosyshq-abc-libs
    yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64)

yosyshq-abc-devel:
    abc-devel
    yosyshq-abc-devel
    yosyshq-abc-devel(x86-64)

yosyshq-abc-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    yosyshq-abc-debuginfo
    yosyshq-abc-debuginfo(x86-64)

yosyshq-abc-debugsource:
    yosyshq-abc-debugsource
    yosyshq-abc-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2229282 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, Java, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Python, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comment 4 Gabriel Somlo 2023-08-05 12:03:11 UTC 
Thanks for the review!

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)
> The Obsoletes are correct, but the provides should be this for the main
> package:
> 
>   Provides: %{prjname} = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> and similarly for the devel subpackage:
> 
>   Provides: %{prjname}-devel = %{version}-%{release}

The way I'm reading the instructions at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages , it should be:

    Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR

where "$provEVR refers to an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple the original unchanged package would have had if it had been version or release bumped."

In other words, the obsoleted package's "next-up" EVR, not the "%{version}-%{release}" of the *new* package. That makes sense to me, intuitively, as the new package should be an "update" for the obsoleted one.

Let me know what you think.

> Otherwise, everything looks good.  Are you planning to build this for
> Rawhide only, or also for F37 or F38?

I was plannin on F38 and rawhide, but if you want me to do f37 as well, I can -- please advise! :)

Thanks again,
--Gabriel

> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> ===== MUST items =====
> 
> C/C++:
> [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
>      Note: Sources not installed
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [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]: Package contains no static executables.
> [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", "MIT (old)", "BSD 3-Clause License",
>      "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause
>      License". 1588 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>      licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2229282-yosyshq-abc/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>      must be documented in the spec.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [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.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
> [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]: 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 9112 bytes in 2 files.
> [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> [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]: 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: yosyshq-abc-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
>           yosyshq-abc-libs-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
>           yosyshq-abc-devel-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
>           yosyshq-abc-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
>           yosyshq-abc-debugsource-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
>           yosyshq-abc-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.src.rpm
> ================================================ 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
> rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_uf4n8i1')]
> checks: 31, packages: 6
> 
> yosyshq-abc.spec:83: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(glucose)
> yosyshq-abc.spec:85: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(minisat2)
> yosyshq-abc.spec:87: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(satoko)
> yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/Constants.h
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/Constants.h
> yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/IntTypes.h
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/IntTypes.h
> yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/pstdint.h
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/pstdint.h
> ================= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings,
> 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s =================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (debuginfo)
> -------------------
> Checking:
> yosyshq-abc-libs-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
>           yosyshq-abc-debuginfo-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.x86_64.rpm
> ================================================ 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
> rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplcmidgrm')]
> checks: 31, packages: 2
> 
> ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings,
> 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> ============================ rpmlint session starts
> ============================
> rpmlint: 2.4.0
> configuration:
>     /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 6
> 
> yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/Constants.h
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/Constants.h
> yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/IntTypes.h
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/IntTypes.h
> yosyshq-abc-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose2/pstdint.h
> /usr/include/abc/sat/glucose/pstdint.h
>  6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has
> taken 2.0 s 
> 
> 
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/YosysHQ/abc/archive/
> bb64142b07794ee685494564471e67365a093710/abc-bb64142.tar.gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> de98237d4d9329b0b0b8b3dca5f741ac8541974cf88aaa8775138ba9d6f29545
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> de98237d4d9329b0b0b8b3dca5f741ac8541974cf88aaa8775138ba9d6f29545
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> yosyshq-abc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     libabc.so.0()(64bit)
>     libc.so.6()(64bit)
>     rtld(GNU_HASH)
>     yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64)
> 
> yosyshq-abc-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     glibc
>     libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
>     libc.so.6()(64bit)
>     libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
>     libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
>     libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
>     libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit)
>     libm.so.6()(64bit)
>     libreadline.so.8()(64bit)
>     libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
>     libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
>     libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
>     libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
>     libz.so.1()(64bit)
>     rtld(GNU_HASH)
> 
> yosyshq-abc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     libabc.so.0()(64bit)
>     yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64)
> 
> yosyshq-abc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> 
> yosyshq-abc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------
> yosyshq-abc:
>     abc
>     yosyshq-abc
>     yosyshq-abc(x86-64)
> 
> yosyshq-abc-libs:
>     abc-libs
>     bundled(cudd)
>     bundled(glucose)
>     bundled(minisat2)
>     bundled(satoko)
>     libabc.so.0()(64bit)
>     yosyshq-abc-libs
>     yosyshq-abc-libs(x86-64)
> 
> yosyshq-abc-devel:
>     abc-devel
>     yosyshq-abc-devel
>     yosyshq-abc-devel(x86-64)
> 
> yosyshq-abc-debuginfo:
>     debuginfo(build-id)
>     yosyshq-abc-debuginfo
>     yosyshq-abc-debuginfo(x86-64)
> 
> yosyshq-abc-debugsource:
>     yosyshq-abc-debugsource
>     yosyshq-abc-debugsource(x86-64)
> 
> 
> 
> Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2229282 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
> Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, Java, fonts, Haskell,
> Ocaml, Python, R
> Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comment 5 Jerry James 2023-08-05 16:14:32 UTC 
(In reply to Gabriel Somlo from comment #4)
> The way I'm reading the instructions at
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-
> replacing-existing-packages , it should be:
> 
>     Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR
> 
> where "$provEVR refers to an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple the original
> unchanged package would have had if it had been version or release bumped."
> 
> In other words, the obsoleted package's "next-up" EVR, not the
> "%{version}-%{release}" of the *new* package. That makes sense to me,
> intuitively, as the new package should be an "update" for the obsoleted one.
> 
> Let me know what you think.

Right, but it also says:

"You usually use macros here because the provides EVR should continue to go up as the renamed package advances in version and release."

And if you look down further at the first example, it has:

Provides: foo = 2:%{version}-%{release}

Because %version and %release are handy macros for continuing that upward motion of the provides EVR.  In this case, the new package's EVR is higher than the obsoleted package's EVR, which makes %version and %release useable for this purpose.  You are free to use some other macro or macros if that makes sense to you, but they need to increase in value every time either Version or Release increases.

> I was plannin on F38 and rawhide, but if you want me to do f37 as well, I
> can -- please advise! :)

I asked because for Rawhide we can simply retire the existing abc package and build cvc5 against this package.  I'm not sure how to handle F38, frankly.  I'd be happy to avoid changing F37 at this point in its lifecycle.
Comment 6 Gabriel Somlo 2023-08-05 19:30:28 UTC 
> "You usually use macros here because the provides EVR should continue to go up as the renamed package advances in version and release."

That also makes a lot of sense :) Based on all that, how about:

  Provides: %{prjname}[-[libs|devel]] = 1.01-40.%{version}-%{release}

? That is strictly greater than "abc-1.01-40", increments with each release of `yosyshq-abc`, and stays strictly below "abc-1.01-41", in case we/you ever decide to revive that one, for any reason.

I'm also assuming we can eventually drop the Provides/Obsoletes lines once F39 goes off support (when f41 is released).

Re. f38, `dnf update` will replace `abc-1.01-40` with `yosyshq-abc-0.31-1` as per the "Provides" tag (that's the point of ensuring the `abc-EVR` provided is greater than that of the last available old abc package). That *would* of course also work in f37, but you're right, if neither of us cares, we can (and should) let sleeping dogs lie :)

Thanks again,
--G
Comment 7 Gabriel Somlo 2023-08-05 23:43:41 UTC 
Updated:

Spec URL: http://mirror.ini.cmu.edu/yosyshq-abc/yosyshq-abc.spec
SRPM URL: http://mirror.ini.cmu.edu/yosyshq-abc/yosyshq-abc-0.31-1.20230804gitbb64142.fc39.src.rpm

I ended up using:

    Provides: %{prjname} = 1.01-40.%{version}.%{release}

LMK if this takes care of it, or if I'm still missing something important.

Thanks,
--G
Comment 8 Jerry James 2023-08-08 14:49:32 UTC 
That looks good to me.
Comment 9 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-08-08 18:12:04 UTC 
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/yosyshq-abc
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2023-08-09 13:49:28 UTC 
FEDORA-2023-850875e2e2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-850875e2e2
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2023-08-10 01:03:00 UTC 
FEDORA-2023-850875e2e2 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-2023-850875e2e2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-850875e2e2

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-08-18 01:58:46 UTC 
FEDORA-2023-850875e2e2 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.