Bug 2237300

Summary: Review Request: libahp-xc - Driver library for the AHP XC Correlators
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Mattia Verga <mattia.verga>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Benson Muite <benson_muite>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: benson_muite, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: benson_muite: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://github.com/ahp-electronics/%{name}
Whiteboard: Trivial
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-11-26 08:24:41 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6371758 to 6557791
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6557791 to 6680597 none

Description Mattia Verga 2023-09-04 16:11:30 UTC 
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libahp-xc/libahp-xc.spec
SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libahp-xc/libahp-xc-1.3.5%5e20230904.dad5c01-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: Driver library for the AHP XC Correlators
Fedora Account System Username: mattia
Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2023-09-05 01:16:38 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6371758
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2237300-libahp-xc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06371758-libahp-xc/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 Mattia Verga 2023-09-05 07:01:14 UTC 
Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105771767
Comment 3 Benson Muite 2023-10-08 12:06:26 UTC 
Package Review
==============

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



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

C/C++:
[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:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: 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", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License, Version 3". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libahp-xc/2237300-libahp-
     xc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev,
     /usr/share/cmake, /usr/share/cmake/Modules, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
[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.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 11515 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: 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 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]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libahp-xc-1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          libahp-xc-devel-1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          libahp-xc-debuginfo-1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          libahp-xc-debugsource-1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          libahp-xc-1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1.fc38.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/tmpblaf0pq2')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

libahp-xc.src: W: strange-permission libahp-xc.spec 600
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libahp-xc-debuginfo-1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1.fc38.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/tmp01pvlk91')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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: 4

 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ahp-electronics/libahp-xc/archive/dad5c01d83ca8cf9c8d5ab14ad7593d51ce290f3/libahp-xc-dad5c01d83ca8cf9c8d5ab14ad7593d51ce290f3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : adcf829a81312c407cfbf7002490b27611c6d09bf7e477b6dd4dfba46ffb3bcf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : adcf829a81312c407cfbf7002490b27611c6d09bf7e477b6dd4dfba46ffb3bcf


Requires
--------
libahp-xc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libahp-xc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libahp-xc(x86-64)
    libahp_xc.so.1()(64bit)

libahp-xc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libahp-xc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libahp-xc:
    libahp-xc
    libahp-xc(x86-64)
    libahp_xc.so.1()(64bit)

libahp-xc-devel:
    libahp-xc-devel
    libahp-xc-devel(x86-64)

libahp-xc-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libahp-xc-debuginfo
    libahp-xc-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libahp_xc.so.1.3.7-1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libahp-xc-debugsource:
    libahp-xc-debugsource
    libahp-xc-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libahp-xc/2237300-libahp-xc/srpm/libahp-xc.spec  2023-10-08 12:04:18.807546082 +0300
+++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libahp-xc/2237300-libahp-xc/srpm-unpacked/libahp-xc.spec  2023-09-04 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 #%%global gittag v1.3.5
 %global commit dad5c01d83ca8cf9c8d5ab14ad7593d51ce290f3
@@ -67,3 +77,4 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Mon Sep 04 2023 John Doe <packager> - 1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1
+- Uncommitted changes


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2237300 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, PHP, Perl, fonts, Ruby, Java, R, SugarActivity, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) The files below have an MIT license header:
libahp-xc-dad5c01d83ca8cf9c8d5ab14ad7593d51ce290f3/ahp_xc.c
libahp-xc-dad5c01d83ca8cf9c8d5ab14ad7593d51ce290f3/ahp_xc.h.cmake
libahp-xc-dad5c01d83ca8cf9c8d5ab14ad7593d51ce290f3/rs232.c
Perhaps check with upstream if the main license is
MIT or GPL-3.0-or-later

b) Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev,
     /usr/share/cmake, /usr/share/cmake/Modules, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d

c) May want to include Doxygen in the requirements and generate documentation. If the documentation is html,
please put it in a separate package and indicate bundled(js-jquery)

d) Would appreciate review of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241790
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242660
Comment 4 Mattia Verga 2023-10-21 09:30:08 UTC 
Fixes in

Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libahp-xc/libahp-xc.spec
SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libahp-xc/libahp-xc-1.3.5%5e20230904.dad5c01-2.fc40.src.rpm

About license, I'm waiting for an official reply from upstream. I'm quite sure it is just MIT (like headers say and the other libahp-gt package), but I put a note in the specfile to explain the different license file provided.
Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2023-10-23 13:13:42 UTC 
Created attachment 1995170 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6371758 to 6557791
Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2023-10-23 13:13:45 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6557791
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2237300-libahp-xc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06557791-libahp-xc/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 7 Mattia Verga 2023-11-22 17:28:25 UTC 
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libahp-xc/libahp-xc.spec
SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libahp-xc/libahp-xc-1.3.8-1.fc40.src.rpm

Upstream has clarified the license to be GPL-3.0-or-later and fixed file headers accordingly.
Comment 8 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-22 17:44:51 UTC 
Created attachment 2000943 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6557791 to 6680597
Comment 9 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-22 17:44:53 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6680597
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2237300-libahp-xc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06680597-libahp-xc/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 10 Benson Muite 2023-11-23 15:48:11 UTC 
Package Review
==============

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



===== 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 16 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora/2237300-libahp-xc/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/ahp(libahp-gt-
     devel)
[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 3323 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libahp-xc-1.3.8-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
          libahp-xc-devel-1.3.8-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
          libahp-xc-doc-1.3.8-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          libahp-xc-debuginfo-1.3.8-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
          libahp-xc-debugsource-1.3.8-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
          libahp-xc-1.3.8-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpc41pbfa0')]
checks: 31, packages: 6

libahp-xc.spec:58: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-jquery)
libahp-xc.src: W: strange-permission libahp-xc.spec 600
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/groups_7.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_10.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/enumvalues_1.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_4.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/groups_3.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_5.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/enumvalues_2.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_6.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_3.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_7.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_5.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_9.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_6.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_a.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/groups_4.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_b.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_7.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_c.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_8.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_d.js
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libahp-xc-debuginfo-1.3.8-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpax9kigh_')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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: 32, packages: 5

libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/groups_7.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_10.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/enumvalues_1.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_4.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/groups_3.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_5.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/enumvalues_2.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_6.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_3.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_7.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_5.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_9.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_6.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_a.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/groups_4.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_b.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_7.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_c.js
libahp-xc-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/variables_8.js /usr/share/doc/libahp-xc/docs/search/all_d.js
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings, 32 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ahp-electronics/libahp-xc/archive/v1.3.8/libahp-xc-1.3.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4bb88a71b8a299ecb79fe63e16c703d908cd8414f34c421a5f7eea401fa70f84
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4bb88a71b8a299ecb79fe63e16c703d908cd8414f34c421a5f7eea401fa70f84


Requires
--------
libahp-xc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    systemd-udev

libahp-xc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem
    libahp-xc(aarch-64)
    libahp_xc.so.1()(64bit)

libahp-xc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libahp-xc

libahp-xc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libahp-xc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libahp-xc:
    libahp-xc
    libahp-xc(aarch-64)
    libahp_xc.so.1()(64bit)

libahp-xc-devel:
    libahp-xc-devel
    libahp-xc-devel(aarch-64)

libahp-xc-doc:
    bundled(js-jquery)
    libahp-xc-doc

libahp-xc-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libahp-xc-debuginfo
    libahp-xc-debuginfo(aarch-64)
    libahp_xc.so.1.3.8-1.3.8-1.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)

libahp-xc-debugsource:
    libahp-xc-debugsource
    libahp-xc-debugsource(aarch-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora/2237300-libahp-xc/srpm/libahp-xc.spec  2023-11-23 09:32:04.749830927 +0000
+++ /home/fedora/2237300-libahp-xc/srpm-unpacked/libahp-xc.spec 2023-11-22 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global gittag v1.3.8
 #%%global commit dad5c01d83ca8cf9c8d5ab14ad7593d51ce290f3
@@ -92,3 +102,15 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Wed Nov 22 2023 Mattia Verga <mattia.verga> - 1.3.8-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Wed Nov 22 2023 Mattia Verga <mattia.verga> - 1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-3
+- Correct license is GPL-3.0-or-later only
+
+* Sat Oct 21 2023 Mattia Verga <mattia.verga> - 1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-2
+- Fix unowned directories
+- Add APIs documentation
+- Drop a note about license
+
+* Mon Oct 09 2023 Mattia Verga <mattia.verga> - 1.3.5^20230904.dad5c01-1
+- Initial release


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2237300
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Thanks for the updates.
b) If you modify Doxyfile.cmake to change the lines
GENERATE_HTML          = YES
and
GENERATE_MAN           = NO
to
GENERATE_HTML          = NO
and
GENERATE_MAN           = YES
You will get man pages which can be put in the main package.
c) If you do not generate man pages and put them in the main package,
please also add the license file to the docs package
d) Builds on all architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=109448885
e) Above can be done on import.
Comment 11 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-11-26 08:11:15 UTC 
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libahp-xc
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-11-26 08:22:08 UTC 
FEDORA-2023-702644afbd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-702644afbd
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-11-26 08:24:41 UTC 
FEDORA-2023-702644afbd has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.