Bug 2268197

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7113152
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268197-sassy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07113152-sassy/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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora/2268197-sassy/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: %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.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10842 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: sassy-devel-0-1.20230610git9847fa1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          sassy-0-1.20230610git9847fa1.fc41.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/tmpjfa0vxwy')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

sassy.src: E: spelling-error ('Preprocessor', "Summary(en_US) Preprocessor -> Processor, Predecessor, Process's")
sassy.src: E: spelling-error ('dejavu', '%description -l en_US dejavu -> deejay')
sassy.src: E: spelling-error ('nauty', '%description -l en_US nauty -> nasty, natty, naughty')
sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Preprocessor', "Summary(en_US) Preprocessor -> Processor, Predecessor, Process's")
sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dejavu', '%description -l en_US dejavu -> deejay')
sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('nauty', '%description -l en_US nauty -> nasty, natty, naughty')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.6 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

sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Preprocessor', "Summary(en_US) Preprocessor -> Processor, Predecessor, Process's")
sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dejavu', '%description -l en_US dejavu -> deejay')
sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('nauty', '%description -l en_US nauty -> nasty, natty, naughty')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/markusa4/sassy/archive/9847fa18ba894ea2ca8dc8319fca9b428387c394/sassy-9847fa18ba894ea2ca8dc8319fca9b428387c394.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2e50770acd9ccf31477949338070eadd2c0341e08582fcbd8f6a94123c23c74c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e50770acd9ccf31477949338070eadd2c0341e08582fcbd8f6a94123c23c74c


Requires
--------
sassy-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
sassy-devel:
    sassy-devel
    sassy-static



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2268197
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, fonts, Java, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

comments:
a) Perhaps a test could be run with libnauty?  The README contains an example program.

The code in README is missing quite a lot to be a reasonable test.  I had intended to do this anyway, which is why this package has BuildRequires that aren't actually used.  I did write a little test program, but immediately started getting C++ library assertion failures.  I have filed an issue upstream: https://github.com/markusa4/sassy/issues/3.

It is interesting that the COPR test builds (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/FLINT3/) did not show any assertion failures.

Upstream has fixed the assertion failures.  New URLs:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sassy/sassy.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sassy/sassy-0-1.20240311gitb628596.fc41.src.rpm

Created attachment 2021195 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7113152 to 7140810

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7140810
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268197-sassy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07140810-sassy/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.

I am going to withdraw this review request for two reasons:
- The sassy code in the scip package has been altered slightly from upstream
- Upstream says that sassy is in bugfix-only mode, and users should migrate to dejavu, a sassy replacement

I think it would be better to allow scip to bundle sassy for now, and work with scip upstream on migrating to dejavu.  Once that happens, I will submit a dejavu review request.