Bug 2334726

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8452267
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2334726-reflection-cpp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08452267-reflection-cpp/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.

The header-only package should have virtual provides for -static package.

Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/reflection-cpp.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/reflection-cpp-0.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2064225 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8452267 to 8454751

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8454751
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2334726-reflection-cpp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08454751-reflection-cpp/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.

reflection-cpp is a dependency of contour-terminal package. https://github.com/contour-terminal/contour/blob/v0.6.0.7452/cmake/ContourThirdParties.cmake#L135

Package is APPROVED.


[x] package name is OK
[x] license is acceptable for Fedora
[x] builds and installs OK
[x] BR/P/R look correct
[x] There are no big rpmlint issues



---



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

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



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 12
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/reflection-cpp/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 304 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: reflection-cpp-devel-0.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          reflection-cpp-0.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp691vzwkd')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

reflection-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "reflection-cpp-devel".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ 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: 1

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/contour-terminal/reflection-cpp/archive/v0.1.0/reflection-cpp-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fa0bd57281d82ea0f72edcbd499a854b97ab4520b062c9ee15efd3fc091b38a0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa0bd57281d82ea0f72edcbd499a854b97ab4520b062c9ee15efd3fc091b38a0


Requires
--------
reflection-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)



Provides
--------
reflection-cpp-devel:
    cmake(reflection-cpp)
    reflection-cpp-devel
    reflection-cpp-devel(x86-64)
    reflection-cpp-static



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name reflection-cpp --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, Java, PHP, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/reflection-cpp

FEDORA-2024-c178a2b7d1 (reflection-cpp-0.1.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c178a2b7d1

FEDORA-2024-c178a2b7d1 (reflection-cpp-0.1.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.