Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/reproc.spec SRPM URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/reproc-14.2.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: reproc (Redirected Process) is a cross-platform C/C++ library that simplifies starting, stopping and communicating with external programs. The main use case is executing command line applications directly from C or C++ code and retrieving their output. reproc consists out of two libraries: reproc and reproc++. reproc is a C99 library that contains the actual code for working with external programs. reproc++ depends on reproc and adapts its API to an idiomatic C++11 API. It also adds a few extras that simplify working with external programs from C++. Fedora Account System Username: orion scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=70306132
The package is approved, but I did find a few things which you should take a look at, below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The License: field on the -devel package is harmless, but is not necessary since it is the same as the base package. - The -devel package should not need to Require: pkgconfig. Just installing the .pc file in the usual location will produce the needed dependency on /usr/bin/pkg-config, which will be satisfied in practice by pkgconf. You can see this in the Requires for the -devel package as listed at the bottom of this review. - Please fix the permissions on your spec file and source tarball: reproc.src: W: strange-permission reproc-14.2.2.tar.gz 640 reproc.src: W: strange-permission reproc.spec 640 > chmod a+r reproc*.tar.gz reproc.spec ===== 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", "Expat License". 95 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1973297-reproc/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. See Issues regarding the unnecessary Requires: pkgconfig, however. [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 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: [-]: 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]: Package functions as described. (based on tests passing) [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: reproc-14.2.2-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm reproc-devel-14.2.2-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm reproc-debuginfo-14.2.2-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm reproc-debugsource-14.2.2-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm reproc-14.2.2-1.fc35.src.rpm reproc-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation reproc.src: W: strange-permission reproc-14.2.2.tar.gz 640 reproc.src: W: strange-permission reproc.spec 640 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: reproc-debuginfo-14.2.2-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DaanDeMeyer/reproc/archive/v14.2.2/reproc-14.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 27c88a913bf82ad3b5e4a03f621456d7300a7b77644b1a780c906d26fdd561f5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27c88a913bf82ad3b5e4a03f621456d7300a7b77644b1a780c906d26fdd561f5 Requires -------- reproc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libreproc.so.14()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) reproc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem cmake-filesystem(aarch-64) libreproc++.so.14()(64bit) libreproc.so.14()(64bit) pkgconfig pkgconfig(reproc) reproc(aarch-64) reproc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): reproc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- reproc: libreproc++.so.14()(64bit) libreproc.so.14()(64bit) reproc reproc(aarch-64) reproc-devel: cmake(reproc) cmake(reproc++) pkgconfig(reproc) pkgconfig(reproc++) reproc-devel reproc-devel(aarch-64) reproc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libreproc++.so.14.2.2-14.2.2-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libreproc.so.14.2.2-14.2.2-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) reproc-debuginfo reproc-debuginfo(aarch-64) reproc-debugsource: reproc-debugsource reproc-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973297 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Java, R, Perl, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the quick review!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/reproc