Bug 2446445

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10249668
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446445-delabella/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10249668-delabella/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.

spec: https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/delabella/raw/master/pkg/rpm/delabella.spec
srpm: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/mumble07/delabella/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/d/delabella-2.0-1.fc45.src.rpm

Mostly seems ok. Can the URL be updated to:

https://github.com/msokalski/delabella

Can the source be updated to
%{url}/archive/V%{version}/delabella-%{version}.tar.gz

Please also change:

%{_libdir}/libdelabella.so.%{version}
%{_libdir}/libdelabella.so.%(echo %{version} | cut -d. -f1)

to

%{_libdir}/libdelabella.so.2{,.*}

Soname changes should be tracked and changed manually so that
changes can be announced to prevent other software from failing
to work when there is an ABI change.

Done.  I changed the source to the upstream repo and put the changes into patch files. I'll do a PR with the upstream repo once this package is accepted.

SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/delabella/srpm-builds/10275569/delabella.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/delabella/srpm-builds/10275569/delabella-2.0-1.src.rpm

Created attachment 2135519 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10249668 to 10275650

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10275650
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446445-delabella/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10275650-delabella/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.

The patches were accepted as PRs so I got rid of them and now point to the latest commit.  
I don't know why the change to major version numbers wasn't done, I thought I had put that in.  In any case, it's been applied now

SRPM : https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/mumble07/delabella/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/Packages/d/delabella-2.0%5E20260402git0b8d371-1.fc45.src.rpm
SPEC : https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mumble07/delabella/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10288338-delabella/delabella.spec

Created attachment 2135840 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10275650 to 10288808

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10288808
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446445-delabella/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10288808-delabella/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.

Permanent links:

SRPM: https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/delabella/releases/download/2.0-packaging/delabella-2.0.20260402git0b8d371-1.src.rpm
SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Mumbri-systems/delabella/master/pkg/rpm/delabella.spec

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10355394
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446445-delabella/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10355394-delabella/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]: 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:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: 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", "BSD 3-Clause License".
     40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/delabella/2446445-
     delabella/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1953 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     delabella-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: 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]: 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: delabella-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          delabella-devel-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          delabella-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1.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/tmprebulyke')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

delabella-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
delabella.spec: W: no-%check-section
delabella.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary
delabella.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: delabella-debuginfo-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1.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/tmpv4oepd7q')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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

delabella-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
delabella.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/msokalski/delabella/archive/0b8d371c28c82492d0a945f535bd7d73c467b630/stepcode-0b8d371.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : baa6b5d50f26809e0bcd3e7832819be882d9b6e9e78d30596dce858164b6e292
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : baa6b5d50f26809e0bcd3e7832819be882d9b6e9e78d30596dce858164b6e292


Requires
--------
delabella (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

delabella-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    delabella
    libdelabella.so.2()(64bit)



Provides
--------
delabella:
    delabella
    delabella(x86-64)
    libdelabella.so.2()(64bit)

delabella-devel:
    delabella-devel
    delabella-devel(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2446445
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Haskell, PHP, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146692335
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146692959
b) Is it possible to build delabella-sdl2.cpp?  This has a benchmark that could be used
as a smoke test that things are working as expected.
c) License should be
MIT AND BSD-3-Clause

See:
https://github.com/msokalski/delabella/blob/master/delabella.cpp#L30
https://github.com/msokalski/delabella/blob/master/predicates.h
d) Either indicate predicates.h as being bundled:
Provides:  bundled(predicates)
or better, package it as it seems to be available at:
https://github.com/wlenthe/GeometricPredicates/tree/master
then make it a dependency.  If you do make predicates a dependency,
and package it separately, then the license to use is just MIT.

Applied changes:
SPEC: https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/delabella/raw/master/pkg/rpm/delabella.spec
SRPM: https://mumble07.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/delabella-2.0%5e20260402git0b8d371-1.fc45.src.rpm

GeometricPredicates has been modified from the original repo, so packaging it separately is not an option.

I built delabella-sdl2.cpp, using a patch on the cmakelists.txt.  It builds and passes %ctest, but I wonder if it makes sense to parse it out as a subpackage?

Finally, I can't tell what changed between the two koji builds that caused the first to fail.  In addition, i686 doesn't seem to be an option for fedora repos in copr?

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10626179
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2446445-delabella/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10626179-delabella/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]: 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:
[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", "BSD 3-Clause License".
     41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/delabella/2446445-
     delabella/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.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1953 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     delabella-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: 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:
[!]: 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: delabella-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          delabella-devel-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          delabella-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1.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/tmpqf5drljg')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

delabella-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
delabella.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary
delabella.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: delabella-debuginfo-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1.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/tmpcfhncqvj')]
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: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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

delabella-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
delabella.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/msokalski/delabella/archive/0b8d371c28c82492d0a945f535bd7d73c467b630/delabella-0b8d371.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : baa6b5d50f26809e0bcd3e7832819be882d9b6e9e78d30596dce858164b6e292
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : baa6b5d50f26809e0bcd3e7832819be882d9b6e9e78d30596dce858164b6e292


Requires
--------
delabella (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

delabella-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    delabella
    libdelabella.so.2()(64bit)



Provides
--------
delabella:
    bundled(GeometricPredicates)
    delabella
    delabella(x86-64)
    libdelabella.so.2()(64bit)

delabella-devel:
    delabella-devel
    delabella-devel(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/delabella/2446445-delabella/srpm/delabella.spec	2026-07-02 15:48:16.043446999 +0300
+++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/delabella/2446445-delabella/srpm-unpacked/delabella.spec	2026-06-22 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    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 commit 0b8d371c28c82492d0a945f535bd7d73c467b630
 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
@@ -52,3 +62,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Mon Jun 22 2026 John Doe <packager> - 2.0^20260402git0b8d371-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2446445
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Python, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147306675
b) in the devel package, please change:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
to
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
c) You would need to run the benchmark code directly in the check section.  It is not
built as a direct test.  You do not need to package it unless you think it is useful
in its own right.  If you do decide to package it, it should be in its own subpackage.
d) Package is approved. Please implement (b) before import. Consider implementing (c),
but not blocking.

b) implemented, c) as well.  Reverted the patch to enable the -sdl2 app, and built it manually in the check section.
Please check the %check section, as it is non-standard.  Build completes successfully, and the benchmark passes.

SRPM: https://mumble07.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/delabella-2.0%5e20260402git0b8d371-1.fc45.src.rpm
SPEC: https://github.com/Mumbri-systems/delabella/raw/master/pkg/rpm/delabella.spec

Proceeding with import.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/delabella
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

FEDORA-2026-4dcfb620ef (delabella-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-2.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4dcfb620ef

FEDORA-2026-4dcfb620ef (delabella-2.0^20260402git0b8d371-2.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.