Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02262680-jsonnet/jsonnet.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02262680-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A data templating language for app and tool developers based on JSON Fedora Account System Username: jcpunk
Continuing from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1973322. Thanks! It might take me a day or two to actually get to this, but I’m claiming the review as a continuation of the previous Bugzilla.
I found a build issue on s390 and have a new build up at: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02262889-jsonnet/jsonnet.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02262889-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
This fails to build on either x86_64 or aarch64 for me, so here are some initial comments without the aid of fedora-review (and without digging into the source tree for now). The first is the cause of the build failure. ===== Issues ===== - It’s my understanding that the *-static virtual Provides for header-only libraries (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries) should not be arched. Some packages providing them unfortunately violate this, which can lead to occasional build failures, but “json” is not one of them. Please change > BuildRequires: json-devel json-static%{?_isa} to > BuildRequires: json-devel json-static to resolve this. - Please explain/justify the makefile patch in a spec file comment, and either indicate that it is not suitable for upstream, or point out that you have offered it upstream. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment. - I don’t think you should add -std=c++0x to the build flags unless it’s entirely unavoidable. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags. You should try to build the C++ code with the same C++ standard that is the default for g++ in Fedora—I think this is currently equivalent to gnu++17. Consider that there is no ABI compatibility across different C++ standards, so when library packages in Fedora use different C++ flags from the distribution defaults, dependent packages can fail to link or, worse, crash at runtime. - The License field is incorrect; you must use one of the short identifiers from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses. “Apache License 2.0” is written as “ASL 2.0”. The “very permissive license” on the MD5 implementation has a name; it is the RSA license. It is approved for Fedora (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/RSA). Since it’s not clear to me that the terms of the RSA license are encompassed by the Apache license, I think it should be included in the License field. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios. I think the License field should look like this. > # The entire source is ASL 2.0 except third_party/md5/, which is RSA > License: ASL 2.0 and RSA - This > %{__make} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} PREFIX=%{_prefix} should be written as > %{make_install} PREFIX=%{_prefix} Importantly, the macro sets INSTALL="%{_bindir}/install -p" so that file mtimes are preserved. - You should include the shared library SONAME version in the file globs so you do not roll an update with an soversion bump by accident. (For Rawhide, these updates require advance notification and should include rebuilds of any dependent packages in a side tag—https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#_rawhide. For stable releases, these updates are allowed only in exceptional circumstances.) See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files, and https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libpri/blob/rawhide/f/libpri.spec for an example. (You don’t have to put the soversion in a macro, but I find it convenient.) - The -devel package correctly requires the base package with a fully-versioned dependency, > Requires: %{srcname} = %{version}-%{release} but this should be arched as well: > Requires: %{srcname}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package. - You can drop > %license LICENSE from the %files section for the -devel package since it requires the base package, so the LICENSE file will always be installed. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing. - Assuming the tests do not have parallel-make bugs, you can and should write > %{__make} test as > %{make_build} test
I'll try and get those changes in place. > >- It’s my understanding that the *-static virtual Provides for header-only libraries (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries) should not be arched. Some packages providing them unfortunately violate this, which can lead to occasional build failures, but “json” is not one of them. Please change > >> BuildRequires: json-devel json-static%{?_isa} > to >> BuildRequires: json-devel json-static > > to resolve this. I'm showing current Fedora isn't providing the non-arched version of json-static: $ rpm -q json-devel --provides |grep static json-static(x86-64) = 3.9.1-2.fc34
I've filed : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974376 to get the static bits up to snuff.
> I'm showing current Fedora isn't providing the non-arched version of json-static: Ugh, you’re right. The maintainer of json-static correctly added the non-arched version in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/json/c/dcb2174e7bf406af13cbe40750909650fde153de and subsequently removed the arched versions in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/json/c/c1b06b23466eb54347528bfa962941e6bedb78d7?branch=rawhide, which is why I couldn’t build your spec on Rawhide for review. However, these commits aren’t in the builds for Fedora 34 and older, so the unarched dependency doesn’t work there. (Follow-up: it looks like you found the same while I was writing this.) Since the arched -static dependency can lead to unexpected build failures, I’d suggest just doing something like this for now: > BuildRequires: json-devel > # Un-arched -static virtual Provides is in F35+ only > # https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974376 > %if 0%{?fedora} != 33 && 0%{?fedora} != 34 > BuildRequires: json-static > %endif altering the conditional if you’re planning to support EPEL8. (Are you?)
(In fact, it looks like that’s exactly what I did in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/giada, and then forgot about it.)
Thanks for all the detailed feedback thus far! I'm planning to eventually do EPEL. I quick look at the EPEL branches shows they are providing the non-arched json-static so it looks like I just need a Fedora 34 specific check. I've got a new thingy built up: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-aarch64/02285141-jsonnet/jsonnet.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-aarch64/02285141-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
Thanks! I’ll take a look at it. I appreciate your effort in figuring out the Right Way(TM) to package this. I’m almost ready to submit a review request for fast_float, which is a dependency for rapidyaml. So that will be at least one piece out of the way.
Review request for fast_float: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974431 Reviewing your latest package is up next…
We’re getting closer and closer! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages The fedora-review text above covers this pretty well. This: %{_libdir}/lib%{srcname}*.so needs to be moved to the %files section for the -devel. You might then want to change Summary: %{summary} development headers (which expands to “Diff JSON and JSON-like structures development headers”, which is a little nonsensical anyway), to: Summary: Development files for %{name} - I haven’t looked into this: jsonnet.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libjsonnet++.so libjsonnet++.so.0.17.0 jsonnet.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libjsonnet.so libjsonnet.so.0.17.0 but hopefully it’s related to the above. You can run “fedora-review -n jsonnet” in a directory with the jsonnet spec file and source RPM (and as a user belonging to the “mock” group) to find out for yourself if this is resolved. - While it’s not wrong, %package -n %{srcname}-devel would be much more simply written as %package devel and the same for the corresponding %description and files section. (Changing this is not mandatory.) - In fact, since you are not relying on %{pypi_source} (which uses %srcname or %pypi_name if set), and the package base name is the same as the Python metadata name and importable module name, you don’t have to set %srcname at all. You could just drop %global srcname jsonnet and write Name: jsonnet and then use %{name} instead of %{srcname} everywhere else in the file. (The %name macro is automatically set based on the Name field.) (Changing this is not mandatory.) - Here, %if 0%{?fedora} && 0%{?fedora} == 34 the first conditional is redundant, as %fedora will always be set and nonzero when it is set to 34. You could just write: %if 0%{?fedora} == 34 (Changing this is not mandatory.) - The Source0 url could be improved in two ways: you can use the %url macro to write it more concisely, and (as a GitHub-specific thing) you can write it in a form that gives you a nicer tarball name. Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz (Changing this is not mandatory.) - Man pages are always desired for command-line executables (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages). Unfortunately, help2man doesn’t generate very satisfactory output. If you are willing to maintain a pair of hand-written downstream man pages in groff_man(7) format, I can supply them—perhaps as a PR once the package is approved. - In general, it’s good to build the documentation if needed and include it in a -doc subpackage. In this case, there are some issues: it bundles CodeMirror, js-yaml, and MathJax (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling), and these include pre-compiled JavaScript (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/#_compilationminification) and CSS (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/#_css). Additionally, these include assets under various additional licenses. It may be possible to deal with all of this and build the documentation anyway, but I don’t want to hold up the package review on trying to do so. If I have some time later, I’ll consider working on this and making a PR. For now, I suggest removing the problematic assets in %prep: # Remove bundled and pre-minified web assets rm -rf doc/third_party and leaving the documentation unpackaged. Note that if you do package it, doc/_layouts/base.html says the documentation is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 (Fedora: CC-BY). - You should add CONTRIBUTING to %doc, alongside README.md. - Rpmlint reports: jsonnet.src:48: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 48) Please fix this. ===== 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. 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* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License", "NTP License", "Expat License", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* LaTeX Project Public License v1.0". 1117 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1973682-jsonnet/licensecheck.txt Bundled web assets with other licenses are not packaged, so the License field is correct. However, the bundled third-party web assets should be removed in %prep for other reasons; see Issues. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. However, bundled web assets should be removed in %prep as mentioned in Issues. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. However, pre-minified or pre-compiled JavaScript and CSS must be removed in %prep. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package As noted in Issues, the unversioned .so file belongs in -devel. [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 2 files. As noted in Issues, there are obstacles to packaging the documentation. Ideally, the documentation can be built later and packaged in a -doc subpackage together with the examples. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as noted) [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-jsonnet This is not required since libjsonnet is statically linked into the Python extension module. [x]: Package functions as described. (based on the tests passing) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm python3-jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-devel-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-debugsource-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.src.rpm jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libjsonnet++.so libjsonnet++.so.0.17.0 jsonnet.aarch64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libjsonnet.so libjsonnet.so.0.17.0 jsonnet.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsonnet jsonnet.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsonnetfmt python3-jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-devel.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation jsonnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.src:20: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-thilo) jsonnet.src:83: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/* jsonnet.src:84: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib jsonnet.src:48: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 48) 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jsonnet-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- jsonnet: /usr/lib64/libjsonnet++.so jsonnet: /usr/lib64/libjsonnet.so python3-jsonnet: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/_jsonnet.cpython-310-aarch64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/jsonnet/archive/refs/tags/v0.17.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 076b52edf888c01097010ad4299e3b2e7a72b60a41abbc65af364af1ed3c8dbe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 076b52edf888c01097010ad4299e3b2e7a72b60a41abbc65af364af1ed3c8dbe Requires -------- jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) jsonnet-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet(aarch-64) jsonnet-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- jsonnet: bundled(md5-thilo) jsonnet jsonnet(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so.0()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) python3-jsonnet: python-jsonnet python3-jsonnet python3-jsonnet(aarch-64) python3.10-jsonnet python3.10dist(jsonnet) python3dist(jsonnet) jsonnet-devel: jsonnet-devel jsonnet-devel(aarch-64) jsonnet-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jsonnet-debuginfo jsonnet-debuginfo(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet++.so.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet++.so.0.17.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet.so-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0.17.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) jsonnet-debugsource: jsonnet-debugsource jsonnet-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973682 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, PHP, R, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Review request for debugbreak, another piece in the rapidyaml dependency tree: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974821
Good news, I believe I've got the json-static arch thingy fixed via a bug report to the maintainer! :)
> - Man pages are always desired for command-line executables > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages). > > Unfortunately, help2man doesn’t generate very satisfactory output. If you are > willing to maintain a pair of hand-written downstream man pages in > groff_man(7) format, I can supply them—perhaps as a PR once the package is > approved. I'd be fine to maintain those. I'll confess I've not much success in making them.... SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02286250-jsonnet/jsonnet.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02286250-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
As part of the last update, I discovered that gtest is actually in Fedora and switched over to the provided CMake makefiles. I fear I may have reintroduced some build issues, but didn't see any that jumped out at me....
Found one minor nit and fixed it: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02295862-jsonnet/jsonnet.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02295862-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
I’m not quite done picking at the details, but we’re getting very close. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Unless I am missing something, you should set -DBUILD_STATIC_LIBS:BOOL=OFF, and remove the -static subpackage. From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries, “In general, packagers SHOULD NOT ship static libraries.” - The build system is still overriding the optimization flags (adding -O3) and the C++ standard flags (forcing C++11) from the environment (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags). I am attaching a patch that should correct this. Note that linking C++ code compiled with different standard versions is not reliable, as there is no ABI compatibility across different standards—so when library packages in Fedora use different C++ flags from the distribution defaults, dependent packages can fail to link or, worse, crash at runtime. - I missed this before, but please split the shared libraries into a -libs subpackage. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394#c5 and the following discussion for an explanation of how this helps with multilib filtering. Once you’ve done this, you’ll have to change Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} to Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in the -devel package, and add it in the base package. You should also add the same fully-versioned dependency to the python3-jsonnet subpackage; even though it automatically depends on the shared library, we want the version and release to stay in sync within subpackages built from the same source. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package. - As long as you are packaging the (currently un-built but partially usable) documentation, you might as well throw in the examples/ to the -doc subpackage—probably without the check.sh scripts. ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - I still think that Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz would result in a better archive name than the current Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz but you are not required to change it. - I very much agree with your choice to remove the dependency on the base package from the -doc subpackage; I was going to request that, but you beat me to it. - The patch to link the Python extension dynamically is great. I’m not sure I would have taken the time to figure that out. Static linking across subpackages of the same source RPM is not against the Fedora guidelines, but it’s always nice to reduce duplication. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. Static library (.a) is built and installed. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. There is a Python extension module, correctly installed. [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. 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* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License", "NTP License". 483 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1973682-jsonnet/licensecheck.txt Note that the RSA license is incorrectly detected as “NTP License” [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. See Issues. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Multiple bundled libraries, correctly removed in prep, except md5 copylib which is correctly handled. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as noted) [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: jsonnet-static. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-jsonnet , jsonnet-static [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm python3-jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-devel-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-static-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-doc-0.17.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm jsonnet-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-debugsource-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.src.rpm jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsonnet jsonnet.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsonnetfmt python3-jsonnet.aarch64: W: summary-not-capitalized C jsonnet Bindings for Python python3-jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-devel.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation jsonnet-static.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-static.aarch64: W: no-documentation jsonnet-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-thilo) 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jsonnet-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-jsonnet: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/_jsonnet.cpython-310-aarch64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/jsonnet/archive/refs/tags/v0.17.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 076b52edf888c01097010ad4299e3b2e7a72b60a41abbc65af364af1ed3c8dbe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 076b52edf888c01097010ad4299e3b2e7a72b60a41abbc65af364af1ed3c8dbe Requires -------- jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) jsonnet-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so.0()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) jsonnet-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- jsonnet: bundled(md5-thilo) jsonnet jsonnet(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so.0()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) python3-jsonnet: python-jsonnet python3-jsonnet python3-jsonnet(aarch-64) python3.10-jsonnet python3.10dist(jsonnet) python3dist(jsonnet) jsonnet-devel: jsonnet-devel jsonnet-devel(aarch-64) jsonnet-static: jsonnet-static jsonnet-static(aarch-64) jsonnet-doc: jsonnet-doc jsonnet-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jsonnet-debuginfo jsonnet-debuginfo(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so.0.17.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0.17.0-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) jsonnet-debugsource: jsonnet-debugsource jsonnet-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973682 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Ocaml, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Created attachment 1793588 [details] Candidate patch to stop overriding build flags Patch mentioned in latest review
Updated with the proposed feedback (I think I missed the source URL comment earlier): SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02296050-jsonnet/jsonnet.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/jsonnet/fedora-34-x86_64/02296050-jsonnet/jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
Package approved! Don’t let me forget to write you a pair of man pages. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The python3-jsonnet subpackage does not have to install the LICENSE file separately since it depends on the -libs subpackage. (However, it is permitted to do so.) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. There is a Python extension module, correctly installed. [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. 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* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License", "NTP License". 483 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1973682-jsonnet/licensecheck.txt Note that the RSA license is incorrectly detected as “NTP License” [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Multiple bundled libraries, correctly removed in %prep, except md5 copylib which is correctly handled. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-jsonnet , jsonnet-libs , jsonnet-devel [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm python3-jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-libs-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-devel-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-doc-0.17.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm jsonnet-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-debugsource-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.src.rpm jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsonnet jsonnet.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsonnetfmt python3-jsonnet.aarch64: W: summary-not-capitalized C jsonnet Bindings for Python python3-jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-libs.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-libs.aarch64: W: no-documentation jsonnet-devel.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation jsonnet-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting jsonnet.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-thilo) 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jsonnet-libs-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm jsonnet-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-jsonnet: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/_jsonnet.cpython-310-aarch64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/jsonnet/archive/v0.17.0/jsonnet-0.17.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 076b52edf888c01097010ad4299e3b2e7a72b60a41abbc65af364af1ed3c8dbe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 076b52edf888c01097010ad4299e3b2e7a72b60a41abbc65af364af1ed3c8dbe Requires -------- jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-libs(aarch-64) ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-libs(aarch-64) ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) jsonnet-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) jsonnet-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-libs(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so.0()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) jsonnet-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsonnet-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- jsonnet: bundled(md5-thilo) jsonnet jsonnet(aarch-64) python3-jsonnet: python-jsonnet python3-jsonnet python3-jsonnet(aarch-64) python3.10-jsonnet python3.10dist(jsonnet) python3dist(jsonnet) jsonnet-libs: jsonnet-libs jsonnet-libs(aarch-64) libjsonnet++.so.0()(64bit) libjsonnet.so.0()(64bit) jsonnet-devel: jsonnet-devel jsonnet-devel(aarch-64) jsonnet-doc: jsonnet-doc jsonnet-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jsonnet-debuginfo jsonnet-debuginfo(aarch-64) jsonnet-debugsource: jsonnet-debugsource jsonnet-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973682 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Java, Perl, Python, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jsonnet
The new version of jsonnet came out today with a dependency on rapidyaml. Any success getting that packaged for Fedora?
(In reply to Pat Riehecky from comment #22) > The new version of jsonnet came out today with a dependency on rapidyaml. > Any success getting that packaged for Fedora? Some. I got https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/c4project and https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/c4core packaged as dependencies. Now I need a package review for c4fs, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025359. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough people reviewing packages right now, so review requests are languishing for many months unless I go looking for review swaps. If you’d be willing to do the review for c4fs and, when it’s ready, for rapidyaml, then I can start working on rapidyaml again.
If I've got the relevant permissions, I'll take a look when it is ready. I'll be out of the office for a bit over the holidays. Tag me in with a needinfo and I'll be sure to get back to it.
(In reply to Pat Riehecky from comment #24) > If I've got the relevant permissions, I'll take a look when it is ready. > > I'll be out of the office for a bit over the holidays. Tag me in with a > needinfo and I'll be sure to get back to it. Thanks! Any packager can do a review. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#_reviewer for instructions.