Spec URL: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/ndn-cxx.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/ndn-cxx-0.3.3-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm Description: Named Data Networking (NDN - www.named-data.net) is a proposed future Internet architecture. This library provides primitives the that can be used to implement various NDN applications. Fedora Account System Username: susmit
Sorry, SRPM is here: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/ndn-cxx-0.3.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
hi can you take for me this? springframework-data-redis - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203 thanks in advance
Sorry Gil, I have already taken another up. I will commit another package soon, may be we can swap that?
Before using fedora-review must be removed: %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} Please, remove cp %_builddir/%{name}-%{name}-%{version}/*.md %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/ cp %_builddir/%{name}-%{name}-%{version}/RELEASE_NOTES.rst %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/ handled with directly with %doc macro Use %license macro: e.g. %doc AUTHORS.md README-dev.md README.md %license COPYING.md and add: %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
(In reply to Susmit from comment #3) > Sorry Gil, I have already taken another up. I will commit another package > soon, may be we can swap that? sure, then remove from this bug, my offer to review. let me know when it's ready regards
First of all, there is incongruity between package name of the review title and the name of your package (libndn-cxx VS ndn-cxx); i think, you should name this package as libndn-cxx. The configuration of build is incomplete and 'waf's potentialities are not totally used; if you run waf --help inside unpacked source archive, you can read all the options provided to build this library correctly. Of course, some packaging fixes are also needed as Gil reported in the comment#4 without forget to package all development files too and run all available tests. See my SPEC file attached.
Created attachment 1065962 [details] ndn-cxx.spec
Addressing the comments. http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/ndn-cxx-0.3.3-1.fc22.src.rpm http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec
There is a double "waf configure" command. * Tue Sep 08 2015 Susmit Shannigrahi <susmit at cs.colostate.edu> - 0.3.3-1 - Use waf to install files - Fix review comments * Fri Aug 21 2015 Susmit Shannigrahi <susmit at cs.colostate.edu> - 0.3.3-0 - Update package for 0.3.3 * Thu Feb 5 2015 Susmit Shannigrahi <susmit at cs.colostate.edu> - 0.3.0-0 - Initial Packaging The Release number starts with 1, not with 0. Make a scratch build with koji to test your package.
New versions: www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx-0.3.4-1.fc22.src.rpm
Stratch builds for rawhide and f22. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11110808 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11110828
- There is a multiple licensing scenario: BSD (3 clause) LGPL (v3 or later) --------------------------------- ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/util/network-monitor.cpp GPL (v3 or later) ----------------- ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/mgmt/control-parameters.hpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/mgmt/control-response.cpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/mgmt/control-response.hpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/mgmt/dispatcher.cpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/mgmt/dispatcher.hpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/mgmt/status-dataset-context.cpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/tests/unit-tests/mgmt/dispatcher.t.cpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/tests/unit-tests/mgmt/status-dataset-context.t.cpp GPL (v3 or later) LGPL (v3 or later) ------------------------------------ ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/management/nfd-face-monitor.hpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/util/notification-stream.hpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/src/util/notification-subscriber.hpp ndn-cxx-ndn-cxx-0.3.4/tests/unit-tests/util/notification-stream.t.cpp These files are involved in the building, some are provided by the -devel sub-package; License must be modified and commented: License: LGPLv3+ and (BSD or LGPLv3+) and (GPLv3+ or LGPLv3+) See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios - The directory %{_sysconfdir}/ndn-cxx is not owned. - Patch0 is not commented. - Fix the warnings 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency - All current versions of Fedora (and their respective RPM versions) treat the Group tag as optional. Packages may include a Group: field for compatibility with EPEL, but are not required to do so. However all valid groups are http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups - Pleas, fix the warning 'mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 1)' 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "GPL (v3 or later) LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1255973-libndn-cxx/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 /etc/ndn-cxx, /etc/ndn-cxx/ndn [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ndn-cxx, /etc/ndn-cxx/ndn [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [ ]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: libndn-cxx-0.3.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm libndn-cxx-devel-0.3.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm libndn-cxx-0.3.4-1.fc24.src.rpm libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dskgen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnputchunks3 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-list libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-key-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sig-verify libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-op-tool libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tlvdump libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-get-default libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-operator-tool libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndncatchunks3 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-ls-identity libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-install libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-install-cert libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-unlock-tpm libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dsk-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-revoke libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-keygen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-dump libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-export libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-acl libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-default libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-certgen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-import libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-delete libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sign-req libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dump-certificate libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libndn-cxx.src: W: non-standard-group Development libndn-cxx.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 1) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 34 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libndn-cxx-debuginfo-0.3.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4()(64bit) libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib64/libboost_date_time.so.1.59.0 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib64/libboost_iostreams.so.1.59.0 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib64/libboost_program_options.so.1.59.0 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib64/libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.59.0 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib64/librt.so.1 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib64/libm.so.6 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-certgen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndncatchunks3 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-key-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-default libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-dump libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-export libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sign-req libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tlvdump libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-unlock-tpm libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sig-verify libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-op-tool libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-revoke libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-ls-identity libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dump-certificate libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-get-default libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-acl libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dsk-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-operator-tool libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnputchunks3 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-install libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-keygen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-install-cert libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-delete libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-import libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-list libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dskgen 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 39 warnings. Requires -------- libndn-cxx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libndn-cxx(x86-64) libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4()(64bit) libndn-cxx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/sh config(libndn-cxx) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libboost_chrono.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_date_time.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_filesystem.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_iostreams.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_random.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_regex.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libndn-cxx-devel: libndn-cxx-devel libndn-cxx-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libndn-cxx) libndn-cxx: config(libndn-cxx) libndn-cxx libndn-cxx(x86-64) libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/named-data/ndn-cxx/archive/ndn-cxx-0.3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 90280c7f64cdf98ccc1f9bbebc4736da77c416e04a6a103ec9fbedb56bbaa7e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90280c7f64cdf98ccc1f9bbebc4736da77c416e04a6a103ec9fbedb56bbaa7e4 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1255973 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks. Updated spec and SRPM: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx-0.3.4-1.fc22.src.rpm Scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11214536
susmit's scratch build of libndn-cxx-0.3.4-1.fc22.src.rpm for f22 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11214318
1 test fails on rawhide.
susmit's scratch build of libndn-cxx-0.3.4-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11228668
susmit's scratch build of libndn-cxx-0.3.4-2.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11231215
(In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #17) > susmit's scratch build of libndn-cxx-0.3.4-2.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide > completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11231215 Please, post the new spec and SRPM if everything is fine.
Thank, but I am still figuring this out with upstream,
susmit's scratch build of libndn-cxx-0.3.4-3.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11296174
New spec and SRPM: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx-0.3.4-3.fc22.src.rpm
- Again, the directory '%{_sysconfdir}/ndn' is not owned; add %dir %{_sysconfdir}/ndn - 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings: see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "GPL (v3 or later) LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1255973-libndn-cxx/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/ndn [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ndn [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: libndn-cxx-0.3.4-3.fc24.i686.rpm libndn-cxx-devel-0.3.4-3.fc24.i686.rpm libndn-cxx-0.3.4-3.fc24.src.rpm libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dskgen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnputchunks3 libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-list libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-key-gen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sig-verify libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-op-tool libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tlvdump libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-get-default libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-operator-tool libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndncatchunks3 libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-ls-identity libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-gen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-install libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-install-cert libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-unlock-tpm libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dsk-gen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-revoke libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-keygen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-dump libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-export libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-acl libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-default libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-certgen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-import libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-delete libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sign-req libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dump-certificate libndn-cxx-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 29 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libndn-cxx-debuginfo-0.3.4-3.fc24.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libndn-cxx-devel.i686: W: no-documentation libndn-cxx.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 libndn-cxx.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib/libboost_date_time.so.1.59.0 libndn-cxx.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib/libboost_iostreams.so.1.59.0 libndn-cxx.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib/libboost_program_options.so.1.59.0 libndn-cxx.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib/libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.59.0 libndn-cxx.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib/librt.so.1 libndn-cxx.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 /lib/libm.so.6 libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sign-req libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-keygen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-op-tool libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dskgen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-get-default libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-delete libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tlvdump libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sig-verify libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-gen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-acl libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-ls-identity libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-list libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dump-certificate libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-certgen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-operator-tool libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-export libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dsk-gen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-unlock-tpm libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-revoke libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-default libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-install libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnputchunks3 libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-import libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndncatchunks3 libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-key-gen libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-install-cert libndn-cxx.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-dump 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 36 warnings. Requires -------- libndn-cxx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libndn-cxx(x86-32) libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 libndn-cxx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/sh config(libndn-cxx) ld-linux.so.2 libboost_chrono.so.1.59.0 libboost_date_time.so.1.59.0 libboost_filesystem.so.1.59.0 libboost_iostreams.so.1.59.0 libboost_program_options.so.1.59.0 libboost_random.so.1.59.0 libboost_regex.so.1.59.0 libboost_system.so.1.59.0 libboost_unit_test_framework.so.1.59.0 libc.so.6 libcryptopp.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libsqlite3.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libndn-cxx-devel: libndn-cxx-devel libndn-cxx-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(libndn-cxx) libndn-cxx: config(libndn-cxx) libndn-cxx libndn-cxx(x86-32) libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/named-data/ndn-cxx/archive/ndn-cxx-0.3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 90280c7f64cdf98ccc1f9bbebc4736da77c416e04a6a103ec9fbedb56bbaa7e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90280c7f64cdf98ccc1f9bbebc4736da77c416e04a6a103ec9fbedb56bbaa7e4 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1255973 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
I have fixed the directory error but not sure how to fix the 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings with waf. Any suggestions?
(In reply to Susmit from comment #23) > I have fixed the directory error but not sure how to fix the > 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings with waf. Any suggestions? %build CXXFLAGS="%{optflags} -std=c++11" \ LINKFLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed" \ %{__python2} ./waf --enable-shared --disable-static --with-tests \ --prefix=%{_prefix} --bindir=%{_bindir} --libdir=%{_libdir} \ --datadir=%{_datadir} --sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir} configure %{__python2} ./waf -v %{?_smp_mflags} Please, use python2-devel as BuildRequires.
susmit's scratch build of libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11476016
Thanks for the help. http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc22.src.rpm http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec
Reposting this for package-review tool. SRPM: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc22.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit/ndn/libndn-cxx.spec
Have you never seen an error like this + build/unit-tests Running 607 test cases... ../tests/unit-tests/util/dns.t.cpp(79): fatal error: in "UtilDns/AsynchronousV6": Resolution should not have failed *** 1 failure is detected in the test module "ndn-cxx Unit Tests" ? It's not always reproducible.
I have seen it once, but as you said, I couldn't reproduce it. I'll let upstream know.
Upstream is working on it. Is this a blocker?
Package approved. Please, leave a comment to http://redmine.named-data.net/issues/3270. 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "GPL (v3 or later) LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libndn- cxx/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 without FPC exception. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm libndn-cxx-devel-0.3.4-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc24.src.rpm libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dskgen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnputchunks3 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-certgen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-list libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-key-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sig-verify libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tlvdump libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-get-default libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-operator-tool libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndncatchunks3 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-ls-identity libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sign-req libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-install-cert libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-unlock-tpm libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dsk-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-revoke libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-keygen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-dump libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-export libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-acl libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-default libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-op-tool libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-import libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-delete libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-install libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dump-certificate libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 30 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libndn-cxx-debuginfo-0.3.4-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libndn-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4 libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4()(64bit) libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sign-req libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-dump libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnputchunks3 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-list libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-acl libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-get-default libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-sig-verify libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dump-certificate libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-unlock-tpm libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-key-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-install libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-ls-identity libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-keygen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tlvdump libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-set-default libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dskgen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-export libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-install-cert libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-op-tool libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-cert-revoke libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndncatchunks3 libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-dsk-gen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-operator-tool libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-certgen libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-delete libndn-cxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndnsec-import 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 31 warnings. Requires -------- libndn-cxx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libndn-cxx(x86-64) libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4()(64bit) libndn-cxx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/sh config(libndn-cxx) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libboost_chrono.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_filesystem.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_random.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_regex.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.59.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcryptopp.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libndn-cxx-devel: libndn-cxx-devel libndn-cxx-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libndn-cxx) libndn-cxx: config(libndn-cxx) libndn-cxx libndn-cxx(x86-64) libndn-cxx.so.0.3.4()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/named-data/ndn-cxx/archive/ndn-cxx-0.3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 90280c7f64cdf98ccc1f9bbebc4736da77c416e04a6a103ec9fbedb56bbaa7e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90280c7f64cdf98ccc1f9bbebc4736da77c416e04a6a103ec9fbedb56bbaa7e4 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -rn libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc22.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libndn-cxx Short Description: C++ library, implementing Named Data Networking (NDN) primitives Upstream URL: https://github.com/named-data/ndn-cxx Owners: susmit Branches: f22 f23 el6 epel7
This SCM request method has been deprecated. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests.
libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b46ee094bb
libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update libndn-cxx' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b46ee094bb
libndn-cxx-0.3.4-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.