Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ivzhh/qgrep/fedora-34-x86_64/02010411-qgrep/qgrep.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ivzhh/qgrep/fedora-34-x86_64/02010411-qgrep/qgrep-1.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: (as quoted from qgrep README) qgrep is an implementation of grep database, which allows you to perform grepping (i.e. full-text searches using regular expressions) over a large set of files. Searches use the database which is a compressed and indexed copy of the source data, thus they are much faster compared to vanilla grep -R. (end of quote) qgrep is very useful tool for users with large text/codebase. qgrep can watch the file changes and update index database on-the-fly. The search can output convenient "Filename:line_no" format and editors, e.g. VS Code, can jump to the line easily. The latest tag of qgrep is v1.2. To package qgrep for Fedora, I made a new CMakeLists.txt file and author of upstream merged the CMake file. So the packaged version is a post-release of v1.2. So spec file uses v1.2 as source0 and CMakeLists.txt as source2. qgrep originally uses lz4 and re2 from git submodules. The dependency of lz4 is converted to the system-wide lz4. However, qgrep uses internal data structures from re2 and system-wide re2 is not enough for building qgrep. So spec file uses re2 as source1. Fedora Account System Username: ivzhh
- Use tar.gz instead of zip - Use a more explicit name for your archive: Source0: %{URL}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Source1: %{_re2_url}/archive/%{_re2_version}/re2-%{_re2_version}.tar.gz - Could you please explain why you can't use system re2, I saw your comment here: "Add CMake build file to support Linux/Mac/Windows build. This CMake file needs to support system/submodule lz4 and submodule re2, as qgrep uses prefilter class from re2 and thus system-provided re2 won't work." https://github.com/zeux/qgrep/pull/15 What is the prefilter class and why system re2 doesn't have it? - Remove trailing spaces - This should not be necessary as library requires ase autodetected: Requires: lz4 - This doesn't seem to be used: %global commit 58e97d8bcaa00a1acdae4ac7e0141efba7705729 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) - You should include BSD as a License: because you bundle Re2. Also add the licenses breakdown as a comment: # MIT: qgrep # BSD: Re2 License: MIT and BSD - You should add a bundled provides for Re2 %global _re2_version c33d1680c7e9ab7edea02d7465a8db13e80b558d %global _re2_url https://github.com/google/re2 %global re2_shortcommit %(c=%{_re2_version}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global re2_snapshotdate 20210310 […] Provides: bundled(re2) = 2021-02-02-1.%{re2_snapshotdate}git%{re2_shortcommit} - You also will need to find a sponsor as this is your first package. See details here: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: 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", "*No copyright* Expat License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "[generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 137 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/qgrep/review-qgrep/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [-]: 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 1 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 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. [-]: %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: qgrep-1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qgrep-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qgrep-debugsource-1.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qgrep-1.2-1.fc35.src.rpm qgrep.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qgrep 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.