Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/cjson.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/cjson-1.7.14-1.fc33.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/DaveGamble/cJSON Description: cJSON aims to be the dumbest possible parser that you can get your job done with. It's a single file of C, and a single header file. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57000049 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint cjson-1.7.14-1.fc33.src.rpm cjson.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ultralightweight -> Ultra lightweight, Ultra-lightweight, Ultralight weight 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint cjson* cjson.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ultralightweight -> Ultra lightweight, Ultra-lightweight, Ultralight weight 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab
> Name: cjson There is a nodejs package called nodejs-cjson" for Commented JSON. Not a requirement, but what about calling your package cJSON or c-json? Merely a suggestion :) From licensecheck: > Apache License 2.0 > ------------------ > cJSON-1.7.14/tests/json-patch-tests/README.md The README file is not ASL 2.0 licensed, but the tests/json-patch-tests content is. The License field should be "MIT and ASL 2.0" with a comment above indicating that tests/json-patch-tests is ASL 2.0 licensed and the rest under MIT. > %package devel > Summary: Development files for cJSON > Requires: cjson = %{version}-%{release} Requires should be fully qualified like so: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} That way also the architecture is included. > %ldconfig_scriptlets The %ldconfig_scriplets macro should no longer be used: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_linker_configuration_files Instead, call ldconfig directly like so: > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig Approved, but please fix above issues on import. Full review below: 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 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Apache License 2.0". 153 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/cjson/cjson/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 61440 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cjson- devel [x]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: cjson-1.7.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cjson-devel-1.7.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cjson-debuginfo-1.7.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cjson-debugsource-1.7.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm cjson-1.7.14-1.fc33.src.rpm cjson.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ultralightweight -> Ultra lightweight, Ultra-lightweight, Ultralight weight cjson.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ultralightweight -> Ultra lightweight, Ultra-lightweight, Ultralight weight 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cjson-debuginfo-1.7.14-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name cjson-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name cjson-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name cjson-devel (none): E: no installed packages by name cjson 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DaveGamble/cJSON/archive/v1.7.14/cjson-1.7.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fb50a663eefdc76bafa80c82bc045af13b1363e8f45cec8b442007aef6a41343 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fb50a663eefdc76bafa80c82bc045af13b1363e8f45cec8b442007aef6a41343 Requires -------- cjson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cjson-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cjson libcjson.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig cjson-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cjson-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cjson: cjson cjson(x86-64) libcjson.so.1()(64bit) cjson-devel: cjson-devel cjson-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libcjson) cjson-debuginfo: cjson-debuginfo cjson-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) cjson-debugsource: cjson-debugsource cjson-debugsource(x86-64)
Thanks for the review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cjson
FEDORA-2020-7cb0c5c49d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7cb0c5c49d
FEDORA-2020-7cb0c5c49d 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-2020-7cb0c5c49d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7cb0c5c49d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-7cb0c5c49d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.