Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libs/wangle.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libs/wangle-2020.10.26.00-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Wangle is a library that makes it easy to build protocols, application clients, and application servers. It's like Netty + Finagle smooshed together, but in C++. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
Taking this review.
Thanks! Fizz should be in the Rawhide compose so it should be straightforward to review this now
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 146 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1891640-wangle/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. [!]: 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 40960 bytes in 3 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]: 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: [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: wangle-2020.10.26.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wangle-devel-2020.10.26.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wangle-debuginfo-2020.10.26.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wangle-debugsource-2020.10.26.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wangle-2020.10.26.00-1.fc34.src.rpm wangle.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able wangle.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smooshed -> smoothed, smooched, swooshed wangle.x86_64: W: no-documentation wangle.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able wangle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smooshed -> smoothed, smooched, swooshed 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wangle-debuginfo-2020.10.26.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- wangle.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able wangle.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smooshed -> smoothed, smooched, swooshed wangle.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/wangle <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> wangle.x86_64: W: no-documentation wangle-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/wangle <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> wangle-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/wangle <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> wangle-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/wangle <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/wangle/releases/download/v2020.10.26.00/wangle-v2020.10.26.00.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfe7c6ff0856cb25fb841c79399c5263c9a7b3161f62c000ffa552a4aa48b1eb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfe7c6ff0856cb25fb841c79399c5263c9a7b3161f62c000ffa552a4aa48b1eb Requires -------- wangle (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libdouble-conversion.so.3()(64bit) libfizz.so.2020.10.26.00()(64bit) libfolly.so.2020.10.26.00()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgflags.so.2.2()(64bit) libglog.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsodium.so.23()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wangle-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libwangle.so.2020.10.26.00()(64bit) wangle(x86-64) wangle-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wangle-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wangle: libwangle.so.2020.10.26.00()(64bit) wangle wangle(x86-64) wangle-devel: cmake(wangle) wangle-devel wangle-devel(x86-64) wangle-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wangle-debuginfo wangle-debuginfo(x86-64) wangle-debugsource: wangle-debugsource wangle-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1891640 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, R, Python, PHP, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Review notes: > [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. This actually is a bug in your spec, as it is supposed to have one and that's currently missing. Please add ExcludeArch: s390x with the appropriate notes and bug references. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests are known to fail and are disabled with a note, so I'm fine with this.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4) > Review notes: > > > [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > facepalm. I forgot to copy that from my previous specs. Thanks!
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libs/wangle.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libs/wangle-2020.10.26.00-2.fc33.src.rpm
Everything looks good now, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thanks! ❯ fedpkg request-repo wangle 1891640 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30124
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wangle
FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47
FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053
FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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-2020-45065fae47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-53f08a8053 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.