Bug 2486105

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10579164
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2486105-libdjbsort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10579164-libdjbsort/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", "*No copyright* Public domain". 204
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libdjbsort/2486105-
     libdjbsort/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.
[x]: 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 11269 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 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: libdjbsort-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
     libdjbsort-static
[ ]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libdjbsort-20260210-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libdjbsort-devel-20260210-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libdjbsort-static-20260210-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libdjbsort-20260210-1.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/tmpoi8w46u4')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

libdjbsort-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able')
libdjbsort.spec:55: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
libdjbsort.spec:61: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 35 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libdjbsort-debuginfo-20260210-1.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/tmpj0tsmacj')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 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: 4

libdjbsort-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able')
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 46 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://sorting.cr.yp.to/djbsort-20260210.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 68637adbb52b1178faf21ea9373db0d983a563afa60f8b4cf83453720f43efd6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68637adbb52b1178faf21ea9373db0d983a563afa60f8b4cf83453720f43efd6


Requires
--------
libdjbsort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcpucycles.so.1()(64bit)
    libdjbsort.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

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

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



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

libdjbsort-devel:
    libdjbsort-devel
    libdjbsort-devel(x86-64)

libdjbsort-static:
    libdjbsort-static
    libdjbsort-static(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2486105
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147306519
b) Consider packaging the documentation, there are markdown and html files (no javascript)
c) Approved. Consider implementing (b) before import.
d) If time allows, please review one of:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2487504
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440361
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2480528

Thank you for your review!

I've considered those documentation files.
The 'master' files are the markdown files, i.e. from those the man pages and html files are generated.

The main package currently installs:

/usr/share/man/man1/djbsort-fulltest.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/djbsort-speed.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/djbsort-test.1.gz
/usr/share/doc/libdjbsort/readme.md
/usr/share/doc/libdjbsort/security.md
/usr/share/licenses/libdjbsort/license.md

The devel currently installs:

/usr/share/man/man3/djbsort.3.gz

which is generated from doc/api.md.

Thus, the packages currently exclude:

doc/changes.md -> moved to download
doc/comparison.md -> comparison with other sorting libraries, better suited for a paper/article, arguably
doc/download.md -> basically the download page with a bit of changelog
doc/install.md -> only relevant when building the library from source
doc/internals.md -> arguably only relevant when hacking on the library itself
doc/refs.md -> extensive references, arguably only relevant when reviewing internals and benchmarks
doc/speed.md -> benchmark page where the plots are online
doc/verif.md -> only relevant if you are interested in the formal verification of the sort functions

So my rationale is to prefer man pages over markdown, include markdown files that add to man pages and provide information that is useful to a 'typical' user over the library and avoid redundant files (in different formats).

I'm open to add more doc files if there is strong demand, but currently I feel that it's a balanced selection.

---

I'll check your review links.

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

FEDORA-2026-e79e49a56b (libdjbsort-20260210-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-e79e49a56b

FEDORA-2026-e79e49a56b (libdjbsort-20260210-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-b7a93dcf61 (libdjbsort-20260621-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b7a93dcf61

FEDORA-2026-55677f7cc5 (libdjbsort-20260621-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-55677f7cc5

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-ae3fce2197 (libdjbsort-20260621-1.el10_3) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.3.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-ae3fce2197

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-ae3fce2197 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-ae3fce2197

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

FEDORA-2026-b7a93dcf61 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-b7a93dcf61 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b7a93dcf61

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

FEDORA-2026-55677f7cc5 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-2026-55677f7cc5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-55677f7cc5

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-19e86633d9 (libdjbsort-20260621-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-19e86633d9

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-19e86633d9 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-2026-19e86633d9

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

FEDORA-2026-b7a93dcf61 (libdjbsort-20260621-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-55677f7cc5 (libdjbsort-20260621-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.