Bug 2281419
| Summary: | Review Request: chez-scheme - Scheme implementation based on an incremental optimizing compiler | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jens Petersen <petersen> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Benson Muite <benson_muite> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | benson_muite, hegjon, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | AutomationTriaged |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | benson_muite:
fedora-review+
|
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| URL: | https://cisco.github.io/ChezScheme | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2024-07-24 01:00:27 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
Jens Petersen
2024-05-18 18:18:07 UTC
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7460303 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2281419-chez-scheme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07460303-chez-scheme/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - chez-scheme : /usr/lib64/csv10.0.0/ta6le/scheme.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Package has .a files: chez-scheme. Illegal package name: chez-scheme. Does not provide -static: chez-scheme. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. May consider putting petite in a separate sub package, see for example: https://build.opensuse.org/projects/openSUSE:Factory/packages/chezscheme/files/chezscheme.spec Should the license file be packaged? See https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/blob/main/LICENSE Some of the files seem to be under other licenses: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2281419-chez-scheme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07460303-chez-scheme/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) > May consider putting petite in a separate sub package, see for example: > https://build.opensuse.org/projects/openSUSE:Factory/packages/chezscheme/ > files/chezscheme.spec Okay thanks - though I am not really sure if this "optimization" makes sense for this new package at this point. If there are use cases I would be happy/open to that certainly: I am relatively new to chez-scheme though. Also their petite subpackage seems missing the real files... > Should the license file be packaged? See > https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/blob/main/LICENSE Thank you good catch oops - I think inherited. > Some of the files seem to be under other licenses: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora- > review-2281419-chez-scheme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07460303-chez-scheme/fedora- > review/licensecheck.txt Thanks (there is quite a bit of noise there, since I am using the system zlib and lz4 libraries) Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme-10.0.0-2.fc41.src.rpm - add license and doc files (#2281419, Benson Muite) - add source license comments (#2281419, Benson Muite) Created attachment 2034001 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7460303 to 7461870
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7461870 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2281419-chez-scheme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07461870-chez-scheme/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - chez-scheme : /usr/lib64/csv10.0.0/ta6le/scheme.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Package has .a files: chez-scheme. Illegal package name: chez-scheme. Does not provide -static: chez-scheme. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. Also my copr repo is here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/petersen/chez-scheme/ Comments: a) Thanks for the changes. b) There is a static library usr/lib64/tarm64le/libkernel.a Is this needed? If so, how is it used? Could it be made a dynamically linked library? c) An object file is also packaged usr/lib64/tarm64le/main.o Perhaps this should be removed. d) Upstream seems to also bundle nanopass and stex. Should the spec file indicate these are bundled? (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #8) > Comments: > b) There is a static library > usr/lib64/tarm64le/libkernel.a > > Is this needed? If so, how is it used? Could it be made a dynamically linked > library? I am not an authority but I see it also in Alpine. Debian puts kernel.o and main.o into chezscheme-dev FreeBSD ports includes libkernel.a. Tumbleweed chezscheme also includes it. I suppose I could ask upstream for advice. > c) An object file is also packaged > usr/lib64/tarm64le/main.o > Perhaps this should be removed. I am not so sure: it is quite common for compilers to include such runtime files. See gcc even for example. > d) Upstream seems to also bundle nanopass and stex. Should the spec file > indicate these are bundled? Good point I will add those, thanks Hm I found https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/issues/811 (regarding main.o) I opened https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/issues/836 to see if upstream wants to chime in. No real replies yet, except to my orthogonal question about the package name. How to proceed then? I don't really feel the inclusion of those files is a blocker, but if you want I suppose I could try to put them in a devel subpackage and see if anything breaks, shrug? Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme-10.0.0-3.fc41.src.rpm provides bundled(nanopass) and bundled(stex) Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme-10.0.0-4.fc41.src.rpm - add a static subpackage Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118902591 Okay I think all your concerns have now been addressed. I am also thinking of submitting this as a F41 Change. Created attachment 2037064 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7461870 to 7606935
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7606935 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2281419-chez-scheme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07606935-chez-scheme/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - chez-scheme-static : /usr/lib64/csv10.0.0/ta6le/scheme.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme-10.0.0-5.fc41.src.rpm - also subpackage the examples - rename static to devel Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118925634 Created attachment 2037114 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7606935 to 7611189
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7611189 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2281419-chez-scheme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07611189-chez-scheme/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Package has .a files: chez-scheme-devel. Does not provide -static: chez-scheme-devel. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. Hmm so maybe "Provides: %{name}-static%{?_isa}" is wrong? though I have used that elsewhere
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme-10.0.0-6.fc41.src.rpm remove the isa suffix from the static provides Created attachment 2037154 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7611189 to 7612253
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7612253 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2281419-chez-scheme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07612253-chez-scheme/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++:
[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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "FSF Unlimited License [generated
file]". 435 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/fedora/2281419-chez-scheme/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.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 294603 bytes in 33 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: chez-scheme-devel.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in chez-
scheme-examples
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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: chez-scheme-10.0.0-6.fc41.aarch64.rpm
chez-scheme-examples-10.0.0-6.fc41.noarch.rpm
chez-scheme-devel-10.0.0-6.fc41.aarch64.rpm
chez-scheme-debuginfo-10.0.0-6.fc41.aarch64.rpm
chez-scheme-debugsource-10.0.0-6.fc41.aarch64.rpm
chez-scheme-10.0.0-6.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/tmpoy5qqbw8')]
checks: 32, packages: 6
chez-scheme.spec:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(nanopass)
chez-scheme-devel.aarch64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/csv10.0.0/tarm64le/libkernel.a
chez-scheme.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('superset', '%description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede')
chez-scheme.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('precompiled', '%description -l en_US precompiled -> recompiled, p recompiled, recompile')
chez-scheme.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('precompiling', '%description -l en_US precompiling -> recompiling, p recompiling, recompensing')
chez-scheme.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('expeditor', '%description -l en_US expeditor -> expediter, exp editor, exp-editor')
chez-scheme.src: E: spelling-error ('superset', '%description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede')
chez-scheme.src: E: spelling-error ('precompiled', '%description -l en_US precompiled -> recompiled, p recompiled, recompile')
chez-scheme.src: E: spelling-error ('precompiling', '%description -l en_US precompiling -> recompiling, p recompiling, recompensing')
chez-scheme.src: E: spelling-error ('expeditor', '%description -l en_US expeditor -> expediter, exp editor, exp-editor')
chez-scheme.spec:107: E: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --installbin=%{_bindir} --installlib=%{_libdir} --installman=%{_mandir} --temproot=%{buildroot} --threads $MACHINE ZLIB=-lz LZ4=-llz4
chez-scheme-examples.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 100%
chez-scheme.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scheme-script
chez-scheme-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation
chez-scheme.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/man/man1/scheme.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/petite.1.gz
chez-scheme.spec:107: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 6 warnings, 28 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: chez-scheme-debuginfo-10.0.0-6.fc41.aarch64.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/tmp968pa3nh')]
checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.13/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
chez-scheme-devel.aarch64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/csv10.0.0/tarm64le/libkernel.a
chez-scheme.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('superset', '%description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede')
chez-scheme.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('precompiled', '%description -l en_US precompiled -> recompiled, p recompiled, recompile')
chez-scheme.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('precompiling', '%description -l en_US precompiling -> recompiling, p recompiling, recompensing')
chez-scheme.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('expeditor', '%description -l en_US expeditor -> expediter, exp editor, exp-editor')
chez-scheme-examples.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 100%
chez-scheme.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scheme-script
chez-scheme-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation
chez-scheme.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/man/man1/scheme.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/petite.1.gz
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings, 27 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/releases/download/v10.0.0/csv10.0.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d37199012b5ed1985c4069d6a87ff18e5e1f5a2df27e402991faf45dc4f2232c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d37199012b5ed1985c4069d6a87ff18e5e1f5a2df27e402991faf45dc4f2232c
Requires
--------
chez-scheme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
liblz4.so.1()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit)
libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0.2)(64bit)
libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
chez-scheme-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
chez-scheme
chez-scheme-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
chez-scheme(aarch-64)
chez-scheme-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
chez-scheme-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
chez-scheme:
bundled(nanopass)
bundled(stex)
chez-scheme
chez-scheme(aarch-64)
chez-scheme-examples:
chez-scheme-examples
chez-scheme-devel:
chez-scheme-devel
chez-scheme-devel(aarch-64)
chez-scheme-static
chez-scheme-debuginfo:
chez-scheme-debuginfo
chez-scheme-debuginfo(aarch-64)
debuginfo(build-id)
chez-scheme-debugsource:
chez-scheme-debugsource
chez-scheme-debugsource(aarch-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2281419
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, fonts, Python, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments;
a) Should stex/ReadMe and nanopass/copyright be marked as license files?
b) Can tests be run?
c) Otherwise seems ok.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #24) > Comments; > a) Should stex/ReadMe and nanopass/copyright be marked as license files? Okay good point - I am adding nanopass/copyright. Actually I don't think stex is used in the build at all from grepping the source and build.log so I don't think it needs to be listed: it is just a tool for generating html from scheme source. > b) Can tests be run? I don't think there are really meaningful tests to run. (I am using chez-scheme to build idris2.) > c) Otherwise seems ok. Thanks for reviewing Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/chez-scheme/chez-scheme-10.0.0-7.fc41.src.rpm - include nanopass Copyright file (#2281419, Benson Muite) - drop bundled(stex) provides since not used Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=120407517 Created attachment 2039517 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7612253 to 7731154
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7731154 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2281419-chez-scheme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07731154-chez-scheme/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. Ok, stex is used to build the documentation. It would be nice to have documentation, but not a blocker. Approved. The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chez-scheme Thank you for the review, Benson - I will try to work out how to enable docs/stex later FEDORA-2024-6306c4ae50 (chez-scheme-10.0.0-7.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6306c4ae50 FEDORA-2024-ea0a0dc769 (chez-scheme-10.0.0-7.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ea0a0dc769 FEDORA-EPEL-2024-048bac0d7a (chez-scheme-10.0.0-7.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-048bac0d7a FEDORA-2024-6306c4ae50 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-6306c4ae50 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6306c4ae50 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2024-ea0a0dc769 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-2024-ea0a0dc769 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ea0a0dc769 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2024-048bac0d7a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-048bac0d7a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2024-048bac0d7a (chez-scheme-10.0.0-7.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2024-ea0a0dc769 (chez-scheme-10.0.0-7.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2024-6306c4ae50 (chez-scheme-10.0.0-7.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. chez-scheme.spec: > # 10.0 fails with "illegal pb instruction" > ExcludeArch: s390x From the review guidelines [1]: MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. See Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Build Failures [2] [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures I have opened bug 2358214 where the discussion should continue. |