Bug 2430713

Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/6b23ac7435b32b22bb6b183f1d59f8b3f878a012/libcpucycles.spec
SRPM URL: https:/georg.so/pub/libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43.src.rpm

A small update:
In case the build architecture actually has _libdir set to /usr/lib the move would fail thus it's guarded now.

Diff: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/commit/6b23ac7435b32b22bb6b183f1d59f8b3f878a012

Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

Donating another / to the SRPM URL ...

Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/6b23ac7435b32b22bb6b183f1d59f8b3f878a012/libcpucycles.spec
SRPM URL: https://georg.so/pub/libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10042068
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430713-libcpucycles/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10042068-libcpucycles/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.

Benson, thank you for taking this review. Did you have a chance to start the review, yet?

Any comments I should address?

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:
[ ]: 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", "*No copyright* Public domain". 65
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libcpucycles/2430713-
     libcpucycles/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be 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.
[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 74678 bytes in 4 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: libcpucycles-static.
[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.
[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
     libcpucycles-static
[x]: 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.
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          libcpucycles-devel-20260105-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          libcpucycles-static-20260105-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          libcpucycles-20260105-1.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/tmpjjzwjnal')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

libcpucycles-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libcpucycles development files
libcpucycles-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able')
libcpucycles.spec:46: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 35 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libcpucycles-debuginfo-20260105-1.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/tmpe5wonfbf')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 4

libcpucycles-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libcpucycles development files
libcpucycles-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able')
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 42 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://cpucycles.cr.yp.to/libcpucycles-20260105.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e87dcaaa28e905b574ccf3d49e23e05c73edb3f99136dcd566bca16829ab6694
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e87dcaaa28e905b574ccf3d49e23e05c73edb3f99136dcd566bca16829ab6694


Requires
--------
libcpucycles (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/sh
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcpucycles.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libcpucycles-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libcpucycles(x86-64)
    libcpucycles.so.1()(64bit)

libcpucycles-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libcpucycles-devel(x86-64)



Provides
--------
libcpucycles:
    libcpucycles
    libcpucycles(x86-64)
    libcpucycles.so.1()(64bit)

libcpucycles-devel:
    libcpucycles-devel
    libcpucycles-devel(x86-64)

libcpucycles-static:
    libcpucycles-static
    libcpucycles-static(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2430713
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Haskell, PHP, Java, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141769796
b) Please change
%{_libdir}/libcpucycles.so.*
to
%{_libdir}/libcpucycles.so{,.*}
see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
c) CC0-1 is not allowed for code in Fedora:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
Please change
License:        LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR CC0-1.0 OR 0BSD OR MIT-0 OR MIT
to
License:        LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR 0BSD OR MIT-0 OR MIT
d) Consider changing
Summary:        libcpucycles development files
to
Summary:        Libcpucycles development files
or
Summary:        Development files for libcpucycles

Ok, I updated the spec file:

Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/ee1221c804171003d9eb64d8081f8c8b64f2d400/libcpucycles.spec
SRPM URL: https://georg.so/pub/libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43.src.rpm

Spec Diff: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/commit/ee1221c804171003d9eb64d8081f8c8b64f2d400


The koji builds look fine.

The glob for the shared library is now more specific.

I've dropped the CC0-1.0 license tag.
Wasn't sure how complete the license expression has to be, since upstream does include CC0-1.0.
However, the omission doesn't really matter since in both versions the license expression evaluates to true
under the Fedora license requirements.

Also updated the summary.

Thanks. Approved.
Review one of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428466
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2424814
would be appreciated if time allows.

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

FEDORA-2026-324c46b7fc (libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-324c46b7fc

FEDORA-2026-324c46b7fc (libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573 (libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-0f6b73856a (libcpucycles-20260105-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-0f6b73856a

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121 (libcpucycles-20260105-1.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121

FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573 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-2026-fcfbcd0573 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-0f6b73856a 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-2026-0f6b73856a

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

FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573 (libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121 (libcpucycles-20260105-1.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-0f6b73856a (libcpucycles-20260105-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.