Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/sleef-rpm/-/raw/4c91a2f40e141f956546595fff279018a69cabdb/sleef.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/484/57800484/sleef-3.5.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: SLEEF stands for SIMD Library for Evaluating Elementary Functions. It implements vectorized versions of all C99 real floating point math functions. It can utilize SIMD instructions that are available on modern processors. SLEEF is designed to efficiently perform computation with SIMD instructions by reducing the use of conditional branches and scatter/gather memory access. The library contains implementations of all C99 real FP math functions in double precision and single precision. Different accuracy of the results can be chosen for a subset of the elementary functions; for this subset there are versions with up to 1 ULP error (which is the maximum error, not the average) and even faster versions with a few ULPs of error. For non-finite inputs and outputs, the functions return correct results as specified in the C99 standard. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji builds: F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57800483 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57800485 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57800487 EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57800489 Note that the -gnuabi subpackage (like the disabled -quad subpackage) really is independent of the base package, and intentionally does not require it. You can verify this by using ldd on the .so files.
> # For directory into which to install .pc file: > Requires: pkgconfig There is an automatic dependency for many years, so adding an explicit one is unnecessary. Query the -devel package to see. Furthermore, there is no physical "pkgconfig" package anymore, since pkgconf has taken over, and package pkgconf-pkg-config provides a virtual "pkgconfig" these days for compatibility.
Good advice, thanks. Updated spec: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/sleef-rpm/-/raw/cf99fd74b5c3781043b9a110dd064ba5b6c38dfb/sleef.spec Updated SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3156/58203156/sleef-3.5.1-2.fc34.src.rpm Updated scratch builds: F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58203150 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58203151 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58203152 EL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=58203153
It appears gitlab is serving a 403 error to the fedora-review tool even though the spec URL is otherwise good, perhaps by blocking user-agents not on a whitelist. This is obnoxious. The following URL should work for everyone: https://music.fedorapeople.org/sleef.spec
- Use an archive with a better name: Source0: https://github.com/shibatch/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Package 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0 [generated file]". 116 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/sleef/review- sleef/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. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sleef- devel , sleef-gnuabi , sleef-gnuabi-devel [?]: 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]: 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: 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: sleef-3.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm sleef-devel-3.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm sleef-doc-3.5.1-2.fc35.noarch.rpm sleef-gnuabi-3.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm sleef-gnuabi-devel-3.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm sleef-debuginfo-3.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm sleef-debugsource-3.5.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm sleef-3.5.1-2.fc35.src.rpm sleef.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Vectorized -> Factorized, Vectored sleef.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorized -> factorized, vectored sleef.x86_64: W: no-documentation sleef-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation sleef-gnuabi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsleefgnuabi sleef-gnuabi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmvec -> libel sleef-gnuabi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glibc -> glib, glib c sleef-gnuabi.x86_64: W: no-documentation sleef-gnuabi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation sleef.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Vectorized -> Factorized, Vectored sleef.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorized -> factorized, vectored 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Thanks for the review! > - Use an archive with a better name: > > Source0: https://github.com/shibatch/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz That works, and I will eagerly change it. I got my URL from https://github.com/shibatch/sleef/tags and https://github.com/shibatch/sleef/releases; did you just construct that URL from your knowledge of the “usual pattern” for GitHub? Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32899
(In reply to code from comment #5) > Thanks for the review! > > > - Use an archive with a better name: > > > > Source0: https://github.com/shibatch/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > That works, and I will eagerly change it. I got my URL from > https://github.com/shibatch/sleef/tags and > https://github.com/shibatch/sleef/releases; did you just construct that URL > from your knowledge of the “usual pattern” for GitHub? > Yes, that comes from my experience with Github.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sleef
FEDORA-2021-260e4972a6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-260e4972a6
FEDORA-2021-b790ac1a16 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b790ac1a16
FEDORA-2021-0acc0d8246 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0acc0d8246
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-96187b31b2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-96187b31b2
FEDORA-2021-b790ac1a16 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-2021-b790ac1a16 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b790ac1a16 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-0acc0d8246 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-2021-0acc0d8246 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0acc0d8246 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-96187b31b2 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-96187b31b2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-260e4972a6 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-260e4972a6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-260e4972a6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-260e4972a6 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-0acc0d8246 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-b790ac1a16 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-96187b31b2 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.