Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/souryogurt/cgreen-rpm/master/cgreen.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/souryogurt/cgreen-rpm/master/cgreen-1.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: A modern, portable, cross-language unit testing and mocking framework for C and C++. Fedora Account System Username: souryogurt Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49121817 This is my first submission and I need a sponsor.
Please use the links to the raw files when using github (e.g. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/souryogurt/cgreen-rpm/master/cgreen.spec) as otherwise fedora-review cannot pick them up. I can review your package, but unfortunately I am not able to sponsor you.
Just simplify all this: %dir %{_includedir}/cgreen %dir %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal %{_includedir}/cgreen/assertions.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/boxed_double.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/breadcrumb.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/cdash_reporter.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/cgreen.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/cgreen_value.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/constraint.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/constraint_syntax_helpers.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/cpp_assertions.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/cpp_constraint.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/cute_reporter.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/assertions_internal.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/c_assertions.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/cgreen_pipe.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/cgreen_time.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/cpp_assertions.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/function_macro.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/mocks_internal.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/mock_table.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/runner_platform.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/stringify_token.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/suite_internal.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/internal/unit_implementation.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/legacy.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/mocks.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/reporter.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/runner.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/string_comparison.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/suite.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/text_reporter.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/unit.h %{_includedir}/cgreen/vector.h %dir %{_libdir}/cmake/cgreen %{_libdir}/cmake/cgreen/cgreen-config-version.cmake %{_libdir}/cmake/cgreen/cgreen-config.cmake to %{_includedir}/cgreen %{_libdir}/cmake/cgreen - # Package tests are checking the format of error messages but assume that # values used in these messages are platform-independent. That leads the test # to fail. ExcludeArch: s390x # Package tests are checking the format of error messages but assume that # values used in these messages are platform-independent. That leads the test # to fail. ExcludeArch: ppc64le If it's only the tests that fail, report it to upstream and disable testing for these arches. I don't think excluding the whole build is necessary.
I saw your bugs for test failures, good, include them as a comment. Bump to 1.3.0
- Applied all suggestions about file pathes in the spec; - Excluded unit tests for s390x and ppc64le instead of whole build; - Bumped to 1.3.0
Also replaced %make_build and %make_install macroses to %cmake_build and %cmake_install to be compatible with Fedora 33 system-wide changehttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_to_do_out-of-source_builds).
Good spec for a first timer. Package approved. You still need to find a sponsor, please refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 373 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cgreen/review- cgreen/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]: 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 20480 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: 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 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: 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: cgreen-1.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cgreen-devel-1.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cgreen-runner-1.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cgreen-debuginfo-1.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cgreen-debugsource-1.3.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cgreen-1.3.0-1.fc34.src.rpm 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Upstream has fixed the bugs in the unit-tests so now tests are passed on s390x and ppc64le architectures. Enabling back unit-tests on all platforms and backporting patches from the master branch with fixes. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/souryogurt/cgreen-rpm/master/cgreen.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/souryogurt/cgreen-rpm/master/cgreen-1.3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55602746
I've sponsored you, if you got any questions on how to proceed next, send me a mail, I ll rend you a step by step guide on ow to import your first package.
Thank you for sponsoring me into the packagers group!:) I really happy about this:) I try to request a repository for the package I initially submitted like this: > fedpkg request-repo cgreen 1843300 However, fedpks says: > Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago Should I request a new review for this to proceed?
Refreshing flag.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cgreen
FEDORA-2020-93abc90e56 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-93abc90e56
FEDORA-2020-7f9fd147ff has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7f9fd147ff
FEDORA-2020-7f9fd147ff has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7f9fd147ff \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7f9fd147ff See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-93abc90e56 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-93abc90e56 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-93abc90e56 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-93abc90e56 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-7f9fd147ff has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.