Bug 2437514

Additional Note:
Using the latest CxxUrl git commit because it includes a cmake install target the 0.3 release did not have.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.


===== 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". 8 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/cxxurl/2437514-
     cxxurl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/include/CxxUrl
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/CxxUrl
[ ]: %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.
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 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]: 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 3105 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).
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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: cxxurl-0.3-1.20241201giteaf46c0.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          cxxurl-devel-0.3-1.20241201giteaf46c0.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          cxxurl-0.3-1.20241201giteaf46c0.fc45.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/tmp2vpvaimc')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

cxxurl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: cxxurl-debuginfo-0.3-1.20241201giteaf46c0.fc45.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/tmpqytrvisd')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 3

cxxurl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/chmike/CxxUrl/archive/eaf46c0207df24853a238d4499e7f4426d9d234c/cxxurl-eaf46c0207df24853a238d4499e7f4426d9d234c.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4bd619a120bdcb7392f6bb3c33f3da1c7854ec0b61ea19d107d780c392117809
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4bd619a120bdcb7392f6bb3c33f3da1c7854ec0b61ea19d107d780c392117809


Requires
--------
cxxurl (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)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

cxxurl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    cxxurl(x86-64)
    libCxxUrl.so.1()(64bit)



Provides
--------
cxxurl:
    cxxurl
    cxxurl(x86-64)
    libCxxUrl.so.1()(64bit)

cxxurl-devel:
    cmake(CxxUrl)
    cmake(cxxurl)
    cxxurl-devel
    cxxurl-devel(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2437514
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Python, Perl, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Please add
%dir %{_includedir}/%{srcname}
to the devel files list

b) Consider using %{forgesource} macros
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control

c) Consider building main.cpp in the check section:
https://github.com/chmike/CxxUrl/blob/master/main.cpp
its use is documented in the README.

d) Consider using %{autorelease} and %{autochangelog} macros
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_release_tag
Traditional %release field is deprecated
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#traditional-versioning

e) Version field should be:
Version:           0.3^%{commit_date}git%{commit_short}%{dist}

f) Only points (a) and (e) are blocking, but addressing other points
would be useful to make package maintenance easier.

> a) Please add %dir %{_includedir}/%{srcname} to the devel files list
Done.

> b) Consider using %{forgesource} macros
I don't expect to switch this package from a git snapshot to a release. Consequently, I see no benefit to using forgesource macros.

> c) Consider building main.cpp in the check section:
Good catch. I failed to scroll to the end of the Readme. 
PR to add a cmake test to the upstream project was created and then merged by upstream: https://github.com/chmike/CxxUrl/pull/17

ctest macro has been in added the specfile

> d) Consider using %{autorelease} and %{autochangelog} macros
Honestly, I can't stand these macros. Call me old fashioned, but I want to see the changelog in the specfile. I don't want to use git or browse somewhere to see this information.

>e) Version field should be:
>Version:           0.3^%{commit_date}git%{commit_short}%{dist}

Ah, it seems I didn't realize snapshot version control changed. I've updated the Version tag to:
0.3^%{commit_date}git%{commit_short}

The %{dist} suffix needs to remain in the Release tag.


UPDATED Spec URL
----------------
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/cxxurl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10129548-cxxurl/cxxurl.spec

UPDATED SRPM URL
----------------
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/cxxurl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10129548-cxxurl/cxxurl-0.3%5E20260214gite81b86e-1.fc45.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Hi Benson, this is a friendly reminder I am still waiting on a followup response. All conditions have been met.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.


===== 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". 8 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/cxxurl/2437514-cxxurl/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 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.
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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: 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]: 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 3105 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).
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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: cxxurl-0.3^20260214gite81b86e-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          cxxurl-devel-0.3^20260214gite81b86e-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          cxxurl-0.3^20260214gite81b86e-1.fc45.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/tmpjp0qcxkn')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

cxxurl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: cxxurl-debuginfo-0.3^20260214gite81b86e-1.fc45.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/tmpdkgwkdr8')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 3

cxxurl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/chmike/CxxUrl/archive/e81b86e8779dcd393ed791c1928690e57a83c544/cxxurl-e81b86e8779dcd393ed791c1928690e57a83c544.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2c4ed9cd7945edf533d6a0bdf21d5ac7a8f179452eee2c40181524dc49918341
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2c4ed9cd7945edf533d6a0bdf21d5ac7a8f179452eee2c40181524dc49918341


Requires
--------
cxxurl (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)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

cxxurl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    cxxurl(x86-64)
    libCxxUrl.so.1()(64bit)



Provides
--------
cxxurl:
    cxxurl
    cxxurl(x86-64)
    libCxxUrl.so.1()(64bit)

cxxurl-devel:
    cmake(CxxUrl)
    cmake(cxxurl)
    cxxurl-devel
    cxxurl-devel(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2437514
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Perl, PHP, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143127098
b) Seems good. Approved.
c) Review of one of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440361
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428466
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440359
would be appreciated it time allows.

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

FEDORA-2026-954d98d6fb (cxxurl-0.3^20260214gite81b86e-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-954d98d6fb

FEDORA-2026-954d98d6fb has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-954d98d6fb \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-954d98d6fb

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

FEDORA-2026-954d98d6fb (cxxurl-0.3^20260214gite81b86e-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.