Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/log4cxx/log4cxx.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/log4cxx/log4cxx-0.10.0-21.fc23.src.rpm Description: Log4cxx is a popular logging package written in C++. One of its distinctive features is the notion of inheritance in loggers. Using a logger hierarchy it is possible to control which log statements are output at arbitrary granularity. This helps reduce the volume of logged output and minimize the cost of logging. Fedora Account System Username: thofmann koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17036966 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/thofmann/log4cxx/ This is a re-review. log4cxx has been retired because it was orphaned for more than six weeks [1, 2]. The package is quite mature so there is not a lot of activity, but generally upstream is still active [3]. Changes since retirement: - Add patches to fix GCC6 build failures - Split documentation into a noarch subpackage - Clean up spec file (%clean section, Group: tag, etc) [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3HKGWUEM24I6MQKSHQUGXOJT3DZSY6NF/ [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MC64XKAEOAIFKR3L2HONEUKE5SD67GMV/ [3] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/log4cxx/
announced on devel: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/BFM2L5VGBDAMW4URBTIPL726D7S42P7T/
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/log4cxx See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in log4cxx-devel Use Requires: '%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}' - Use '--enable-static=no' as configure's option to not build static files (*.a) - make -k %{?_smp_mflags} Why that -k option? - Please, fix 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [c]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "Apache (v2.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 876 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1408428-log4cxx/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries 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. [!]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in log4cxx- devel , log4cxx-doc , log4cxx-debuginfo [ ]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [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: log4cxx-0.10.0-21.fc26.x86_64.rpm log4cxx-devel-0.10.0-21.fc26.x86_64.rpm log4cxx-doc-0.10.0-21.fc26.noarch.rpm log4cxx-debuginfo-0.10.0-21.fc26.x86_64.rpm log4cxx-0.10.0-21.fc26.src.rpm log4cxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib log4cxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation log4cxx.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: log4cxx-debuginfo-0.10.0-21.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- log4cxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib log4cxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation log4cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblog4cxx.so.10.0.0 /lib64/libldap_r-2.4.so.2 log4cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblog4cxx.so.10.0.0 /lib64/liblber-2.4.so.2 log4cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblog4cxx.so.10.0.0 /lib64/libexpat.so.1 log4cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblog4cxx.so.10.0.0 /lib64/libdb-5.3.so log4cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblog4cxx.so.10.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 log4cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblog4cxx.so.10.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 log4cxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblog4cxx.so.10.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- log4cxx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): log4cxx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config liblog4cxx.so.10()(64bit) log4cxx log4cxx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libapr-1.so.0()(64bit) libaprutil-1.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdb-5.3.so()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblber-2.4.so.2()(64bit) libldap_r-2.4.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) log4cxx-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- log4cxx-debuginfo: log4cxx-debuginfo log4cxx-debuginfo(x86-64) log4cxx-devel: log4cxx-devel log4cxx-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(liblog4cxx) log4cxx: liblog4cxx.so.10()(64bit) log4cxx log4cxx(x86-64) log4cxx-doc: log4cxx-doc Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/dist/logging/log4cxx/0.10.0/apache-log4cxx-0.10.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0de0396220a9566a580166e66b39674cb40efd2176f52ad2c65486c99c920c8c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0de0396220a9566a580166e66b39674cb40efd2176f52ad2c65486c99c920c8c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1408428 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/log4cxx/log4cxx.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/log4cxx/log4cxx-0.10.0-22.fc23.src.rpm Thank you for reviewing! (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/log4cxx > See: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ > NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names > > - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in log4cxx-devel > > Use Requires: '%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}' Fixed. > > - Use '--enable-static=no' as configure's option to not build static files > (*.a) Fixed. > > - make -k %{?_smp_mflags} > > Why that -k option? Oversight. I replaced it with %make_build. > > - Please, fix 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings Fixed.
Package approved.
log4cxx-0.10.0-22.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c6094fd7f8
log4cxx-0.10.0-22.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-add3f195a0
log4cxx-0.10.0-22.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c6094fd7f8
log4cxx-0.10.0-22.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-add3f195a0
log4cxx-0.10.0-22.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
log4cxx-0.10.0-22.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.