Bug 2329353

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8323557
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2329353-cucumber-messages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08323557-cucumber-messages/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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "*No copyright* MIT License [generated file]", "*No
     copyright* ISC License". 620 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/cucumber-messages/2329353-cucumber-
     messages/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.
[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.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 504 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     cucumber-messages-cpp-libs , cucumber-messages-cpp-devel
[ ]: 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.
[-]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: cucumber-messages-cpp-libs-27.0.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          cucumber-messages-cpp-devel-27.0.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          cucumber-messages-debugsource-27.0.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.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/tmp_996d9sv')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 5.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: cucumber-messages-cpp-libs-debuginfo-27.0.2-1.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/tmp1ecssbna')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 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

 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 3.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/cucumber/messages/archive/v27.0.2/messages-27.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1e9fee2ad7ecbe76d1d5ddf4354abee2d606429ad5feb610368ea14c6d411985
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1e9fee2ad7ecbe76d1d5ddf4354abee2d606429ad5feb610368ea14c6d411985


Requires
--------
cucumber-messages-cpp-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(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)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

cucumber-messages-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    cucumber-messages-cpp-libs(x86-64)
    libcucumber_messages.so.0.1()(64bit)

cucumber-messages-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
cucumber-messages-cpp-libs:
    cucumber-messages-cpp-libs
    cucumber-messages-cpp-libs(x86-64)
    libcucumber_messages.so.0.1()(64bit)

cucumber-messages-cpp-devel:
    cmake(cucumber_messages)
    cucumber-messages-cpp-devel
    cucumber-messages-cpp-devel(x86-64)

cucumber-messages-debugsource:
    cucumber-messages-debugsource
    cucumber-messages-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2329353
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, R, PHP, Perl, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


Comments:
a) Koji build
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126334220
b) There is a ruby package:
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/rubygem-cucumber-messages/rubygem-cucumber-messages/
which could possibly be incorporated at some point.
c) Approved.

Thank you for the review!

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
> 
> Comments:
> a) Koji build
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126334220
> b) There is a ruby package:
> https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/rubygem-cucumber-messages/rubygem-
> cucumber-messages/
> which could possibly be incorporated at some point.

Indeed. I don’t know if it would be better to do it as a subpackage or to have a separate rubygem-cucumber-messages source package. Since I’m not very experienced with Ruby packaging, I will probably just wait until/unless someone asks for it.

Similarly, perl and/or php bindings could probably be built from this source package, but doing so is tedious enough that I probably won’t do it unless someone asks for it.

> c) Approved.

Thanks again!

I added this package to release-monitoring.org, but couldn’t test the configuration right now because release-monitoring.org hit its github.com API rate limit.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cucumber-messages

FEDORA-2024-d0bbce4076 (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d0bbce4076

FEDORA-2024-d0bbce4076 (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-f9016ac4bb (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f9016ac4bb

FEDORA-2024-5cd3db61af (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5cd3db61af

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-75e5bfb78a (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-75e5bfb78a

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-31dea9088b (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-2.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-31dea9088b

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a9b26858d6 (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-2.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a9b26858d6

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-31dea9088b 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-2024-31dea9088b

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-75e5bfb78a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-75e5bfb78a

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

FEDORA-2024-f9016ac4bb has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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-f9016ac4bb \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f9016ac4bb

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a9b26858d6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-a9b26858d6

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

FEDORA-2024-5cd3db61af 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-2024-5cd3db61af \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5cd3db61af

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-75e5bfb78a (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-31dea9088b (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-2.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-EPEL-2024-a9b26858d6 (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-2.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-5cd3db61af (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-f9016ac4bb (cucumber-messages-27.0.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.