Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/toml11.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/toml11-3.6.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: toml11 is a C++11 (or later) header-only toml parser/encoder depending only on C++ standard library. * It is compatible to the latest version of TOML v1.0.0. * It is one of the most TOML standard compliant libraries, tested with the language agnostic test suite for TOML parsers by BurntSushi. * It shows highly informative error messages. You can see the error messages about invalid files at CircleCI. * It has configurable container. You can use any random-access containers and key-value maps as backend containers. * It optionally preserves comments without any overhead. * It has configurable serializer that supports comments, inline tables, literal strings and multiline strings. * It supports user-defined type conversion from/into toml values. * It correctly handles UTF-8 sequences, with or without BOM, both on posix and Windows. Fedora Account System Username: atim
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66439475
- Headers only libraries must add a static Provide %package devel Summary: Devel files for %{name} Provides: toml11-static = %{version}-%{release} %description devel %{_description} Devel files for %{name}. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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", "Expat License". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/toml11/review-toml11/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 71680 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: toml11-devel-3.6.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm toml11-3.6.1-1.fc35.src.rpm toml11-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers toml11-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized toml11-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiline -> multilingual toml11-devel.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 toml11-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib toml11.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toml -> tom, tome, toms toml11.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers toml11.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized toml11.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiline -> multilingual toml11.src:74: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package devel %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.
Thanks, new build: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/toml11.spec https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/toml11-3.6.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
Package approved.
@eclipseo, thank you. I'll try to fix in future also some tests which not requires internet access.
(In reply to Artem from comment #5) > @eclipseo, thank you. I'll try to fix in future also some tests which not > requires internet access. I ran the tests locally with network access and with Werror disabled.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/toml11
FEDORA-2021-a73dd69d38 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a73dd69d38
FEDORA-2021-ddb77d8f46 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ddb77d8f46
FEDORA-2021-ddb77d8f46 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-ddb77d8f46 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ddb77d8f46 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-a73dd69d38 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-a73dd69d38 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a73dd69d38 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Headers only libraries must not be noarch: See bz1954188.
FEDORA-2021-92b3a04aef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-92b3a04aef
FEDORA-2021-cc87f93d4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cc87f93d4e
FEDORA-2021-cc87f93d4e 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-cc87f93d4e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cc87f93d4e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-92b3a04aef 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-2021-92b3a04aef \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-92b3a04aef See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-cc87f93d4e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-92b3a04aef has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.