Bug 2369997

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9125979
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2369997-gherkin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09125979-gherkin/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* ISC
     License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 1346 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/gherkin/2369997-gherkin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.13
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/include/cucumber(cucumber-messages-cpp-devel),
     /usr/include/cucumber/cucumber(cucumber-messages-cpp-devel)
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[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 94497 bytes in 5 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 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

Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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 gherkin-
     data , gherkin-cpp-libs , gherkin-cpp-devel , gherkin-cpp-tools ,
     python3-gherkin-official
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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: 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: gherkin-data-32.1.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          gherkin-cpp-libs-32.1.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          gherkin-cpp-devel-32.1.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          gherkin-cpp-tools-32.1.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          python3-gherkin-official-32.1.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          gherkin-32.1.2-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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/tmp2pthdift')]
checks: 32, packages: 6

gherkin.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Gherkin
python3-gherkin-official.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/gherkin/gherkin-languages.json ../../../../share/gherkin/gherkin-languages.json
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: gherkin-cpp-libs-debuginfo-32.1.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          gherkin-debuginfo-32.1.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          gherkin-cpp-tools-debuginfo-32.1.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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/tmpoj2ttlxj')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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: 8

python3-gherkin-official.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/gherkin/gherkin-languages.json ../../../../share/gherkin/gherkin-languages.json
 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 51 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/archive/v32.1.2/gherkin-32.1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1b92adad1fb61347e4360b8d2573ded2dc8abb1a197814403a3ad6656d70d887
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b92adad1fb61347e4360b8d2573ded2dc8abb1a197814403a3ad6656d70d887


Requires
--------
gherkin-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

gherkin-cpp-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcucumber_messages.so.27()(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_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

gherkin-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    gherkin-cpp-libs(x86-64)
    libcucumber_gherkin.so.32()(64bit)

gherkin-cpp-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gherkin-cpp-libs(x86-64)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcucumber_gherkin.so.32()(64bit)
    libcucumber_messages.so.27()(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)

python3-gherkin-official (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gherkin-data
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(typing-extensions)



Provides
--------
gherkin-data:
    gherkin-data

gherkin-cpp-libs:
    gherkin-cpp-libs
    gherkin-cpp-libs(x86-64)
    libcucumber_gherkin.so.32()(64bit)

gherkin-cpp-devel:
    cmake(cucumber_gherkin)
    gherkin-cpp-devel
    gherkin-cpp-devel(x86-64)

gherkin-cpp-tools:
    gherkin-cpp-tools
    gherkin-cpp-tools(x86-64)

python3-gherkin-official:
    python-gherkin
    python-gherkin-official
    python3-gherkin
    python3-gherkin-official
    python3.13-gherkin
    python3.13-gherkin-official
    python3.13dist(gherkin-official)
    python3dist(gherkin-official)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369997
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Java, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Makefiles have acceptance tests, though they do not seem to be used in the current
CI setup upstream
https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/blob/main/cpp/Makefile
https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/blob/main/c/Makefile
can these be used?  The acceptance tests compare outputs using a diff,
so they seem to fail when there are small changes:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134073780
b) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134073726

Thank you for the review.

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
> Comments:
> a) Makefiles have acceptance tests, though they do not seem to be used in
> the current
> CI setup upstream
> https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/blob/main/cpp/Makefile
> https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/blob/main/c/Makefile
> can these be used?  The acceptance tests compare outputs using a diff,
> so they seem to fail when there are small changes:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134073780

I reported the failures upstream in https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/issues/412. This has resulted in some fixes for C++: https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/pull/414, https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/pull/415, and https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/pull/416. After those get reviewed and merged, and hopefully we can fix C as well, I’ll see if I can get the acceptance tests running in the RPM build and offer an updated submission.

With the patches mentioned in the previous comment, plus https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/pull/417 and https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin/pull/418, I’m able to run all of the acceptance tests, including the C acceptance tests if I do "fedpkg mockbuild --with c". Since I am quite happy with that, I am uploading a new submission without waiting for any of the PR’s to be merged upstream.

Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250617/gherkin.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250617/gherkin-32.1.2-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2094230 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9125979 to 9178973

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9178973
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2369997-gherkin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09178973-gherkin/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.

Thanks. Approved.

Review of one of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373132
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372327
would be appreciated if time allows.

Thank you for the review! I reviewed bug 2373132.

https://release-monitoring.org/project/62372/

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gherkin

FEDORA-2025-f4bfd6b0d2 (gherkin-32.1.2-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f4bfd6b0d2

FEDORA-2025-f4bfd6b0d2 (gherkin-32.1.2-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.