Bug 2421025

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9896121
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2421025-vipr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09896121-vipr/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

The package looks good enough, 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]: 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.
[-]: The source package does not include the text of the license(s) in
     its own file.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
     (MIT and LGPL-3.0-or-later).
[x]: The licensing breakdown is documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format *autochangelog).
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application).
[-]: No development files.
[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 contain systemd file(s).
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag expect for ix86.
[x]: No large documentation files.
[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]: 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]: 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.
     Please, consider that in the future.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (current Git snapshot).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[+/-]: Patches should link to upstream bugs/comments/lists. Consider 
     reporting zlib-ng compatibility patch upstream.
[-]: Sources are not verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish
     signatures).
[?]: I did not test if the package should compile and build into binary
     rpms on all supported architectures.
[x]: %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: vipr-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          vipr-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpbgqiw3lz')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vipr2html
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprchk
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprchk_parallel
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprcomp
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprincomp
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprttn
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 

^^^ Unfortunately we indeed do not have man-pages.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: vipr-debuginfo-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpiisu6f0n')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 2

vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vipr2html
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprchk
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprchk_parallel
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprcomp
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprincomp
vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprttn
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 29 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 

^^^ Likewise.

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/scipopt/vipr/archive/30f2951d1e90e47afa821bdd1b12b82246656c42/vipr-30f2951.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bfd905e3378353b5f4e93ad2405c75feed0d477e0a74113496fb2d6e04ca7786
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfd905e3378353b5f4e93ad2405c75feed0d477e0a74113496fb2d6e04ca7786


Requires
--------
vipr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libclusol.so.0()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
    libgmpxx.so.4()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmpfr.so.6()(64bit)
    libsoplex.so.8.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtbb.so.12()(64bit)
    libz-ng.so.2()(64bit)
    libz-ng.so.2(ZLIB_NG_2.0.0)(64bit)
    libz-ng.so.2(ZLIB_NG_2.1.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
vipr:
    vipr
    vipr(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2421025
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, R, fonts, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


I don't see any issues so this package is 

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

Thank you for the review!  The missing man pages are unfortunate, but the binaries also don't provide help output that could be passed to help2man. :-(

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

FEDORA-2025-1f63cc8e4e (vipr-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1f63cc8e4e

FEDORA-2025-b3c336cac0 (vipr-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b3c336cac0

FEDORA-2025-1f63cc8e4e has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-1f63cc8e4e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1f63cc8e4e

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

FEDORA-2025-b3c336cac0 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b3c336cac0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b3c336cac0

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

FEDORA-2025-1f63cc8e4e (vipr-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-b3c336cac0 (vipr-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.