Bug 2321986

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8180423
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321986-seastar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08180423-seastar/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'll review it

Few remarks:

* Check the date in spec-file. It has to be 20241024. 
* License field should be improved. Seastar has parts licensed under BSD licenses. See NOTICE file for the details.
* Empty %check section. Could you please elaborate why? Not a blocker.
* Typo in macro - _desciption instead of _description. Please fix it.
* The resulting seastar.pc contains double slash in a library path - "liburing_libs=//usr/lib64/liburing.so". Advise upstream to fix it. Not a blocker.
* RPMlint warns that some binary calls gethostbyname(). Consider advising upstream to port it to use getaddrinfo(). Not a blocker.

Apart from that I don't see any other issues so here is my formal

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:
[x]: 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.
     See my comment above.
[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.
[x]: No macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not 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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contains systemd file(s).
[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 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]: 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 8352 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (Git snapshot).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: No extra patches.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish
     signatures).
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms
     on all supported architectures.
[!]: %check section is empty. See my comment above.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: seastar-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          seastar-devel-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          seastar-debuginfo-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          seastar-debugsource-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          seastar-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.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/tmp8xxmjaml')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

seastar.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %_desciption
seastar.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %_desciption
seastar.src: E: spelling-error ('desciption', '%description -l en_US desciption -> description, deception, nondescript')
seastar.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('desciption', '%description -l en_US desciption -> description, deception, nondescript')
seastar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary seastar-json2code.py
seastar-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
seastar-devel.x86_64: E: double-slash-in-pkgconfig-path /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/seastar.pc liburing_libs=//usr/lib64/liburing.so
seastar.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary
seastar.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
seastar.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2 /usr/lib64/libseastar.so.22.11.0 gnutls_priority_init
seastar.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libseastar.so.22.11.0
======================================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings, 46 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 7.1 s =======================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: seastar-debuginfo-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.x86_64.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/tmp302p66oa')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

======================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 15 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 5.0 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-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: 4

seastar.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %_desciption
seastar.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('desciption', '%description -l en_US desciption -> description, deception, nondescript')
seastar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary seastar-json2code.py
seastar-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
seastar-devel.x86_64: E: double-slash-in-pkgconfig-path /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/seastar.pc liburing_libs=//usr/lib64/liburing.so
seastar.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
seastar.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-2 /usr/lib64/libseastar.so.22.11.0 gnutls_priority_init
seastar.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libseastar.so.22.11.0
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings, 44 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 3.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/scylladb/seastar/archive/47c52cb3e19c4757093b812876ea245d7fc0b62d/seastar-47c52cb.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 622a384be2305e63843b27fb7bb2abfbe4e4c1f6e36f779b5edb6c7f7294abb1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 622a384be2305e63843b27fb7bb2abfbe4e4c1f6e36f779b5edb6c7f7294abb1


Requires
--------
seastar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    libboost_program_options.so.1.83.0()(64bit)
    libboost_thread.so.1.83.0()(64bit)
    libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.83.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcares.so.2()(64bit)
    libfmt.so.11()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.30()(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit)
    libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_6_0)(64bit)
    libhwloc.so.15()(64bit)
    liblz4.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libnuma.so.1()(64bit)
    libnuma.so.1(libnuma_1.1)(64bit)
    libprotobuf.so.30()(64bit)
    libseastar.so.22()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    liburing.so.2()(64bit)
    liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit)
    libyaml-cpp.so.0.8()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

seastar-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libseastar.so.22()(64bit)
    libseastar_perf_testing.so.22()(64bit)
    libseastar_testing.so.22()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(gnutls)
    pkgconfig(hwloc)
    pkgconfig(liblz4)
    pkgconfig(liburing)
    pkgconfig(protobuf)
    pkgconfig(seastar)
    pkgconfig(yaml-cpp)
    seastar(x86-64)

seastar-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

seastar-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
seastar:
    libseastar.so.22()(64bit)
    libseastar_perf_testing.so.22()(64bit)
    libseastar_testing.so.22()(64bit)
    seastar
    seastar(x86-64)

seastar-devel:
    cmake(Seastar)
    cmake(seastar)
    pkgconfig(seastar)
    pkgconfig(seastar-testing)
    seastar-devel
    seastar-devel(x86-64)

seastar-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libseastar.so.22.11.0-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libseastar_perf_testing.so.22.11.0-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libseastar_testing.so.22.11.0-22.11.0^20242024.47c52cb-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    seastar-debuginfo
    seastar-debuginfo(x86-64)

seastar-debugsource:
    seastar-debugsource
    seastar-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2321986
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Java, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Ping! :)

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.