Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/lib3mf.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/lib3mf-2.0.0-2.fc32.src.rpm Description: lib3mf is a C++ implementation of the 3D Manufacturing Format standard. This is a 3D printing standard for representing geometry as meshes. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard This package is intended for Fedora as well as EPEL 7.
Copr builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/churchyard/lib3mf/monitor/ aarch64 failed with "qemu: uncaught target signal 11 (Segmentation fault) - core dumped", I'll submit a Koji scratch build as well to see if this happens on metal. rawhide https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42898209 epel7 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42898217
/bin/sh: /builddir/build/BUILD/lib3mf-2.0.0/AutomaticComponentToolkit/bin/act.linux: cannot execute binary file /bin/sh: /builddir/build/BUILD/lib3mf-2.0.0/AutomaticComponentToolkit/bin/act.linux: cannot execute binary file: Exec format error So this is: act.linux: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, Go BuildID=hlkMFUCo1Y79N7OkjxkH/i_Q3HNsrX-QdtWO3WMnu/mBFl89fbhhV-CV3j6Q6P/EASpsQGE3UU9jhuPwENX, not stripped I ma quite sure this is bad. Will go to upstream.
https://github.com/3MFConsortium/lib3mf/issues/199 Until this is solved, we can exclude other architectures, but I sure that using this binary thing to build the package is a no go for Fedora.
I've updated the package to us a packaged version of AutomaticComponentToolkit.
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]: 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]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: lib3mf-2.0.0-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm lib3mf-devel-2.0.0-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm lib3mf-debuginfo-2.0.0-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm lib3mf-debugsource-2.0.0-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm lib3mf-2.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm lib3mf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lib3mf-debuginfo-2.0.0-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm lib3mf-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://3mf.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- lib3mf-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://3mf.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> lib3mf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation lib3mf-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://3mf.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> lib3mf.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://3mf.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> lib3mf-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://3mf.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/3MFConsortium/lib3mf/archive/v2.0.0/lib3mf-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 453588414c8e25668651de678a492632c1e5715e8ff3fdbb6a034fc57b14440b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 453588414c8e25668651de678a492632c1e5715e8ff3fdbb6a034fc57b14440b Requires -------- lib3mf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lib3mf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lib3mf(x86-64) lib3mf.so.2()(64bit) lib3mf-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lib3mf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lib3mf: lib3mf lib3mf(x86-64) lib3mf.so.2()(64bit) lib3mf-devel: lib3mf-devel lib3mf-devel(x86-64) lib3mf-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lib3mf-debuginfo lib3mf-debuginfo(x86-64) lib3mf-debugsource: lib3mf-debugsource lib3mf-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1818945 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lib3mf
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3
FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.