Bug 2242660

Updated to add tests.

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/xeus-zmq/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06504945-xeus-zmq/xeus-zmq.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/xeus-zmq/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06504945-xeus-zmq/xeus-zmq-1.1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm


koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107196111

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

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


Issues
======
None, package APPROVED

===== 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]: 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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rpmbuild/review/2242660-xeus-zmq/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. # JUSTIFIED #
[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 4632 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[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: xeus-zmq-1.1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          xeus-zmq-devel-1.1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          xeus-zmq-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          xeus-zmq-debugsource-1.1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          xeus-zmq-1.1.1-1.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/tmphgnwk_5t')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

xeus-zmq-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xeus-zmq-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
======= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =======




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xeus-zmq-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.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/tmp186ou99u')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

======= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 4

xeus-zmq-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xeus-zmq-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jupyter-xeus/xeus-zmq/archive/1.1.1/xeus-zmq-1.1.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1cac6df3b0a6fafb892f075cae3144acceb57dcbc65e28552c9a4737e5c67097
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1cac6df3b0a6fafb892f075cae3144acceb57dcbc65e28552c9a4737e5c67097


Requires
--------
xeus-zmq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libxeus.so.9()(64bit)
    libzmq.so.5()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

xeus-zmq-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libxeus-zmq.so.2()(64bit)
    xeus-zmq(x86-64)

xeus-zmq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xeus-zmq-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
xeus-zmq:
    libxeus-zmq.so.2()(64bit)
    xeus-zmq
    xeus-zmq(x86-64)

xeus-zmq-devel:
    cmake(xeus-zmq)
    xeus-zmq-devel
    xeus-zmq-devel(x86-64)

xeus-zmq-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libxeus-zmq.so.2.0.1-1.1.1-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    xeus-zmq-debuginfo
    xeus-zmq-debuginfo(x86-64)

xeus-zmq-debugsource:
    xeus-zmq-debugsource
    xeus-zmq-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242660
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, R, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xeus-zmq

FEDORA-2023-a2b59f607c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a2b59f607c

FEDORA-2023-a2b59f607c 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-a2b59f607c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a2b59f607c

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

FEDORA-2023-6a7050aeed has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6a7050aeed

FEDORA-2023-6a7050aeed 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-2023-6a7050aeed \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6a7050aeed

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

FEDORA-2023-6a7050aeed has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-a2b59f607c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.