Bug 2238029

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6387906
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2238029-parsertl14/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06387906-parsertl14/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.

Koji scratch builds:

F40: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105910768

Builds fail in older releases because lexertl14-devel is missing a dependency on boost-devel; I’m currently fixing that by updating to a current lexertl14 snapshot in which the Boost dependency has been removed.

Related: bug 2238219

Upstream has fixed the hard-coded relative include paths to lexertl:

https://github.com/BenHanson/parsertl14/commit/2faa36ce256bd33cb2a78aa4bb893d3da0737566

This means I no longer have to use sed to hack up the include paths. I’ve updated to the latest upstream commit:

New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230911/parsertl14-0^20230911gitace8a58-1.fc40.src.rpm
New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230911/parsertl14.spec

F40 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106034634

Created attachment 1988130 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6387906 to 6394003

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6394003
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2238029-parsertl14/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06394003-parsertl14/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #6)
> Copr build:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6394003
> (failed)

(COPR is broken right now.)

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6924018
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2238029-parsertl14/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06924018-parsertl14/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.

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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No
     copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 28 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora/2238029-parsertl14/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
     Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code:
     /home/fedora/2238029-parsertl14/upstream-
     unpacked/Source0/parsertl14-ace8a58736364710fd161f2c22e44577e9ab5f74/include
[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]: 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 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 2703 bytes in 1 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.
[ ]: 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.
[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:
[!]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: parsertl14-devel-0^20230911gitace8a58-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          parsertl14-0^20230911gitace8a58-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp51ycwddy')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

parsertl14.src: W: strange-permission parsertl14.spec 600
parsertl14.spec: W: no-%build-section
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/BenHanson/parsertl14/archive/ace8a58736364710fd161f2c22e44577e9ab5f74/parsertl14-ace8a58736364710fd161f2c22e44577e9ab5f74.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1cc47d92a5998bc287b52b03b7a284777b2e16974b3eb4f37362eafe4468854b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1cc47d92a5998bc287b52b03b7a284777b2e16974b3eb4f37362eafe4468854b


Requires
--------
parsertl14-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    lexertl14-devel



Provides
--------
parsertl14-devel:
    parsertl14-devel
    parsertl14-static



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora/2238029-parsertl14/srpm/parsertl14.spec        2024-01-20 07:24:11.175048065 +0000
+++ /home/fedora/2238029-parsertl14/srpm-unpacked/parsertl14.spec       2023-09-11 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 commit ace8a58736364710fd161f2c22e44577e9ab5f74
 %global snapdate 20230911
@@ -73,3 +83,4 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Mon Sep 11 2023 John Doe <packager> - 0^20230911gitace8a58-1
+- Uncommitted changes


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2238029
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, Python, Ocaml, PHP, R, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Perhaps upstream should tag releases? There are two releases available at
http://www.benhanson.net/parsertl.html but it is unclear what commits they
correspond to.
b) Check permissions on spec file.
c) Approved.

Thank you for the review!

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #10)
> Package Review
> ==============
> […]
> Comments:
> a) Perhaps upstream should tag releases? There are two releases available at
> http://www.benhanson.net/parsertl.html but it is unclear what commits they
> correspond to.

I agree, and I suggested this in [1]. Upstream seemed open to the idea, but hasn’t implemented tagged releases yet.

> b) Check permissions on spec file.

This is an rpmautospec quirk, https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/301.

> c) Approved.

[1] https://github.com/BenHanson/lexertl14/discussions/18#discussioncomment-6905235

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/parsertl14

FEDORA-2024-9972b9df82 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-9972b9df82

FEDORA-2024-9972b9df82 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.