Bug 2440988

Summary: Review Request: libxml++40 - C++ wrapper for the libxml2 XML parser library
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Benson Muite <benson_muite>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: benson_muite, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: AutomationTriaged
Target Release: ---Flags: benson_muite: fedora-review+
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://libxmlplusplus.github.io/libxmlplusplus/
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-03-12 16:24:47 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 2446246    

Description Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-02-19 14:56:49 UTC 
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libxml++40/libxml++40.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libxml++40/libxml++40-4.4.0-1.fc45.src.rpm
Description:
libxml++ is a C++ wrapper for the libxml2 XML parser library. Its original
author is Ari Johnson and it is currently maintained by Christophe de Vienne
and Murray Cumming.

Fedora Account System Username: rathann
Comment 1 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-02-19 14:57:33 UTC 
We already have libxml++, libxml++30 and libxml++50. This one is missing (and I need it for subtitleeditor).
Comment 2 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-02-19 17:04:02 UTC 
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libxml++40/libxml++40.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libxml++40/libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.src.rpm

* Thu Feb 19 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 4.4.0-2
- run tests
Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2026-02-20 04:22:38 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10154252
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440988-libxml__40/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10154252-libxml++40/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.
Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2026-02-20 04:31:30 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10154269
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440988-libxml__/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10154269-libxml++40/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.
Comment 5 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-03-06 12:10:24 UTC 
Ping.
Comment 6 Benson Muite 2026-03-08 16:22:13 UTC 
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


===== 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]: 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
     2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No
     copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later",
     "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License". 418 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-
     libxml++40/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/devhelp(libsigc++20-doc, gdlmm-doc, cluttermm-doc,
     pangomm2.48-doc, cairomm1.16-doc, glibmm2.4-doc, atkmm-doc,
     glibmm2.68-doc, pangomm-doc, libxml++30-doc, libxml++50-doc,
     gtkmm2.4-doc, gtkmm4.0-doc, libsigc++30-doc, atkmm2.36-doc, cairomm-
     doc, gconfmm26-doc, gtkmm3.0-doc, devhelp),
     /usr/share/devhelp/books(libsigc++20-doc, gdlmm-doc, cluttermm-doc,
     pangomm2.48-doc, cairomm1.16-doc, glibmm2.4-doc, atkmm-doc,
     glibmm2.68-doc, pangomm-doc, libxml++30-doc, libxml++50-doc,
     gtkmm2.4-doc, gtkmm4.0-doc, libsigc++30-doc, atkmm2.36-doc, cairomm-
     doc, gconfmm26-doc, gtkmm3.0-doc, devhelp)
[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 34772 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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 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:
[x]: 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
     libxml++40-devel
[ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 6.6 starting (python version = 3.14.3, NVR = mock-6.6-1.fc43), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True --resultdir=/home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results install /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-2.fc45.noarch.rpm /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-debugsource-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-debuginfo-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm
Start(bootstrap): init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish(bootstrap): init plugins
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Mock Version: 6.6
INFO: Mock Version: 6.6
Start(bootstrap): chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata
Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (fallback)
Finish(bootstrap): chroot init
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (direct choice)
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-2.fc45.noarch.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-debugsource-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-debuginfo-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 75ba6a61f623448e91a00c2a5eda4e80 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.7eb19eru:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 45 install /builddir/libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-2.fc45.noarch.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-debugsource-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-debuginfo-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-2.fc45.noarch.rpm
          libxml++40-4.4.0-2.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/tmpy5xyk8nj')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

libxml++40.src: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
libxml++40.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.5 s 




Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/libxmlplusplus/libxmlplusplus/releases/download/4.4.0/libxml++-4.4.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 02365465f62c7c8fe38618da8805fd8d8fd18544cd88b18c39098995513787bb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 02365465f62c7c8fe38618da8805fd8d8fd18544cd88b18c39098995513787bb


Requires
--------
libxml++40 (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)
    libglibmm-2.68.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.0)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.2)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.7)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.8)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.15)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.2)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.20)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.3)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.6)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libxml++40-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libxml++-4.0.so.1()(64bit)
    libxml++40(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(glibmm-2.68)
    pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)

libxml++40-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibmm26-doc



Provides
--------
libxml++40:
    libxml++-4.0.so.1()(64bit)
    libxml++40
    libxml++40(x86-64)

libxml++40-devel:
    libxml++40-devel
    libxml++40-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libxml++-4.0)

libxml++40-doc:
    libxml++40-doc



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/srpm/libxml++40.spec	2026-03-08 18:36:26.514803371 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/srpm-unpacked/libxml++40.spec	2026-02-19 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 2;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global api_ver 4.0
 
@@ -36,5 +46,5 @@
 Summary:        Documentation for %{name}, includes full API docs
 BuildArch:      noarch
-Requires:       glibmm2.68-doc
+Requires:       glibmm26-doc
 
 %description    doc
@@ -76,3 +86,9 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Thu Feb 19 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 4.4.0-2
+- run tests
+
+* Thu Feb 19 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 4.4.0-1
+- initial package
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440988
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, R, fonts, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) It seems ok. Not sure why it fails to install in mock.
Comment 7 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-03-09 12:26:56 UTC 
> a) It seems ok. Not sure why it fails to install in mock.

I forgot to upload SRPM after fixing the -docs subpackage dependency on glibmm2.68-doc.

Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libxml++40/libxml++40.spec
SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libxml++40/libxml++40-4.4.0-3.fc45.src.rpm

* Mon Mar 09 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 4.4.0-3
- fix docs subpackage dependency
Comment 8 Fedora Review Service 2026-03-09 12:34:20 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10203632
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440988-libxml__40/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10203632-libxml++40/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.
Comment 9 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-03-10 20:44:48 UTC 
Is there anything else I need to fix?
Comment 10 Benson Muite 2026-03-11 18:15:28 UTC 
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
     2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No
     copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later",
     "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License". 418 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-
     libxml++40/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/devhelp(atkmm-doc,
     gtkmm3.0-doc, cluttermm-doc, libxml++30-doc, atkmm2.36-doc,
     libsigc++30-doc, gconfmm26-doc, glibmm2.4-doc, cairomm-doc,
     glibmm2.68-doc, libsigc++20-doc, cairomm1.16-doc, pangomm-doc, gdlmm-
     doc, libxml++50-doc, devhelp, gtkmm2.4-doc, pangomm2.48-doc,
     gtkmm4.0-doc), /usr/share/devhelp/books(atkmm-doc, gtkmm3.0-doc,
     cluttermm-doc, libxml++30-doc, atkmm2.36-doc, libsigc++30-doc,
     gconfmm26-doc, glibmm2.4-doc, cairomm-doc, glibmm2.68-doc,
     libsigc++20-doc, cairomm1.16-doc, pangomm-doc, gdlmm-doc,
     libxml++50-doc, devhelp, gtkmm2.4-doc, pangomm2.48-doc, gtkmm4.0-doc)
[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 34772 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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.
[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
     libxml++40-devel
[ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libxml++40-4.4.0-3.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-3.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-3.fc45.noarch.rpm
          libxml++40-4.4.0-3.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/tmpi97fl9a9')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

libxml++40.src: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
libxml++40.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.7 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libxml++40-debuginfo-4.4.0-3.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/tmp6oiyflzl')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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

libxml++40.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/libxmlplusplus/libxmlplusplus/releases/download/4.4.0/libxml++-4.4.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 02365465f62c7c8fe38618da8805fd8d8fd18544cd88b18c39098995513787bb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 02365465f62c7c8fe38618da8805fd8d8fd18544cd88b18c39098995513787bb


Requires
--------
libxml++40 (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)
    libglibmm-2.68.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.0)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.2)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.7)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.8)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.15)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.2)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.20)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.3)(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.6)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libxml++40-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libxml++-4.0.so.1()(64bit)
    libxml++40(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(glibmm-2.68)
    pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)

libxml++40-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibmm2.68-doc



Provides
--------
libxml++40:
    libxml++-4.0.so.1()(64bit)
    libxml++40
    libxml++40(x86-64)

libxml++40-devel:
    libxml++40-devel
    libxml++40-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libxml++-4.0)

libxml++40-doc:
    libxml++40-doc



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/srpm/libxml++40.spec	2026-03-11 20:38:18.094313387 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/srpm-unpacked/libxml++40.spec	2026-03-09 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.8.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 3;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global api_ver 4.0
 
@@ -76,3 +86,12 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Mon Mar 09 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 4.4.0-3
+- fix docs subpackage dependency
+
+* Thu Feb 19 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 4.4.0-2
+- run tests
+
+* Thu Feb 19 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> - 4.4.0-1
+- initial package
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440988
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, R, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Thanks. Approved.
b) Review of one of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428466
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2439289
would be appreciated if time allows.
Comment 11 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-03-11 19:42:30 UTC 
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libxml++40
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2026-03-12 16:19:58 UTC 
FEDORA-2026-a1f29ef992 (libxml++40-4.4.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a1f29ef992
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2026-03-12 16:24:47 UTC 
FEDORA-2026-a1f29ef992 (libxml++40-4.4.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.