Spec URL: https://pagure.io/ccls/raw/master/f/ccls.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/defolos/devel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00873245-ccls/ccls-0.20190314-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: ccls, which originates from cquery, is a C/C++/Objective-C language server. - code completion (with both signature help and snippets) - definition/references, and other cross references - cross reference extensions: $ccls/call $ccls/inheritance $ccls/member $ccls/vars ... - formatting - hierarchies: call (caller/callee) hierarchy, inheritance (base/derived) hierarchy, member hierarchy - symbol rename - document symbols and approximate search of workspace symbol - hover information - diagnostics and code actions (clang FixIts) - semantic highlighting and preprocessor skipped regions - semantic navigation: $ccls/navigate Fedora Account System Username: defolos Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33749211
- Don't mix Suse stuff into Fedora, make two separate SPECS please - Build the docs with Doxygen
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Don't mix Suse stuff into Fedora, make two separate SPECS please I'd very much prefer to keep them, if that is possible, as I want to include ccls in openSUSE too and would like to maintain only a single spec file. But I can drop them if required. > > - Build the docs with Doxygen Upstream does not provide a Doxyfile and since it is an end user application, I see very little benefit of including the internal documentation. I have also glanced over the source code and most of the comments do not really use the Doxygen syntax.
I thought I had finished this this morning -_- (In reply to dan.cermak from comment #2) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > > - Don't mix Suse stuff into Fedora, make two separate SPECS please > > I'd very much prefer to keep them, if that is possible, as I want to include > ccls in openSUSE too and would like to maintain only a single spec file. > > But I can drop them if required. > It's not recommended, but has been granted an exception recently. > > > > - Build the docs with Doxygen > > Upstream does not provide a Doxyfile and since it is an end user > application, I see very little benefit of including the internal > documentation. I have also glanced over the source code and most of the > comments do not really use the Doxygen syntax. I mixed up with rapidjson subrepo. - Version in the %changelog is incorrect, release number should be 1 not 0: %changelog * Sun Mar 24 2019 Dan Čermák <dan.cermak> - 0.20190314-1 Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. Note: Multiple Release: tags found See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* BSL". 137 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ccls/review-ccls/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. [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. [-]: 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 1 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 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]: 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: [-]: 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 ccls [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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: ccls-0.20190314-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ccls-debuginfo-0.20190314-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ccls-debugsource-0.20190314-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ccls-0.20190314-1.fc31.src.rpm ccls.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cquery -> query, c query, equerry ccls.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US callee -> caller, called, cal lee ccls.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace ccls.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.20190314-0 ['0.20190314-1.fc31', '0.20190314-1'] ccls.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ccls ccls.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cquery -> query, c query, equerry ccls.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US callee -> caller, called, cal lee ccls.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space, work-space, works pace ccls.src:31: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(siphash) ccls.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(macro_map) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ccls
ccls-0.20190314-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1613d86a9f
ccls-0.20190314-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-725d6c0eef
ccls-0.20190314-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-1613d86a9f
ccls-0.20190314-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-725d6c0eef
ccls-0.20190314-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ccls-0.20190314-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.