Bug 1579523 (RxCpp) - Review Request: RxCpp - Reactive Extensions for C++
Summary: Review Request: RxCpp - Reactive Extensions for C++
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: RxCpp
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1518828 1523432 1556583
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-05-17 20:36 UTC by Björn 'besser82' Esser
Modified: 2018-06-02 21:08 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-06-02 20:44:23 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Björn 'besser82' Esser 2018-05-17 20:36:39 UTC
Description:

  The Reactive Extensions for C++ (RxCpp) is a library of algorithms
  for values-distributed-in-time.


Issues:

  fedora-review shows no obvious issues.  rpmlint is silent.


FAS-User:

  besser82


Urls:

  Spec URL:  https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/RxCpp.spec
  SRPM URL:  https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/RxCpp-4.0.0-0.1.fc29.src.rpm


Thanks for review in advance!

Comment 1 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2018-05-17 20:39:16 UTC
Scratch build:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27022353

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-05-18 12:44:22 UTC
 - AUTHORS.txt should be %doc, not %license

 - I had to disable mt for the review cause I don't have enough memory for it.

 - Build stops in fedora-review with the following error: 

[ 88%] Building CXX object build/test/CMakeFiles/rxcpp_test_lift.dir/operators/lift.cpp.o
cd /builddir/build/BUILD/RxCpp-4.0.0/build/test && /usr/lib64/ccache/c++  -DCATCH_CONFIG_MAIN -I/builddir/build/BUILD/RxCpp-4.0.0/Rx/v2/src -I/usr/include/catch  -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -DNDEBUG   -Wall -Wextra -Werror -Wunused -std=gnu++11 -o CMakeFiles/rxcpp_test_lift.dir/operators/lift.cpp.o -c /builddir/build/BUILD/RxCpp-4.0.0/Rx/v2/test/operators/lift.cpp
make[2]: *** [build/test/CMakeFiles/rxcpp_test_lift.dir/build.make:66: build/test/CMakeFiles/rxcpp_test_lift.dir/operators/lift.cpp.o] Error 1 

I'll retry later with a clean chroot.

Comment 3 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2018-05-18 12:56:23 UTC
You can download all built rpms in the needed arch from the scratch build on Koji and run `fedora-review -p -n RxCpp` from the same dir, where you downloaded the files into.

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-05-18 13:45:00 UTC
 Thanks I didn't know that trick, turns out the build also use all my free disk space on /.

  Package approved.


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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
     (v2.0)". 313 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/RxCpp/review-
     RxCpp/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.
[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]: 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 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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 does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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 RxCpp-
     devel
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define lc_name
     %{lua:print(rpm.expand("%{name}"):lower())}
[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.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: RxCpp-devel-4.0.0-0.1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          RxCpp-doc-4.0.0-0.1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          RxCpp-4.0.0-0.1.fc29.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-05-18 15:04:36 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/RxCpp

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2018-05-25 09:11:20 UTC
RxCpp-4.0.0-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-00c6939a94

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2018-05-25 09:11:28 UTC
RxCpp-4.0.0-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-10b357bfbe

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2018-05-25 15:43:53 UTC
RxCpp-4.0.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-00c6939a94

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2018-05-25 18:46:06 UTC
RxCpp-4.0.0-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-10b357bfbe

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2018-06-02 20:44:23 UTC
RxCpp-4.0.0-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2018-06-02 21:08:35 UTC
RxCpp-4.0.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.