Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/observable/observable.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/observable/observable-0-1.20210717gitae3a59c.fc35.src.rpm Description: Observable provides generic observable objects for C++. Write declarative, reactive expressions or just implement the observer pattern. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72083713
Looks fine; APPROVED. I'd recommend splitting -doc and making -devel just suggest it, since otherwise you're pulling in an extra MB (borderline requiring an extra subpackage anyway) everytime observable-devel is pulled in as a BR in the build system. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. seems like a false positive due to fedora-review not understanding rpmautospec features ===== 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]: 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". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1983331-observable/licensecheck.txt [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. [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. [-]: 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 962560 bytes in 65 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]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1034240 bytes in /usr/share [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: observable-devel-0-1.20210717gitae3a59c.fc35.x86_64.rpm observable-0-1.20210717gitae3a59c.fc35.src.rpm observable-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/observable-devel/doc/.buildinfo observable-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/observable-devel/doc/objects.inv observable.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C observable observable.src:72: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog observable.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: observable-use-system-catch.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ddinu/observable/archive/ae3a59cc65c1cb65d27827adc4c1ef5a37298cb7/observable-ae3a59cc65c1cb65d27827adc4c1ef5a37298cb7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0c8ee6c48c37a910bd06605685655a34435a7bb5c786b1b8b6a9a1dea9ca31e2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0c8ee6c48c37a910bd06605685655a34435a7bb5c786b1b8b6a9a1dea9ca31e2 Requires -------- observable-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- observable-devel: observable-devel observable-devel(x86-64) observable-static Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1983331 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Python, Haskell, fonts, Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! I'll split the doc package out after importing. $ fedpkg request-repo observable 1983331 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35798
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/observable
FEDORA-2021-4c9b229cbd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4c9b229cbd
FEDORA-2021-4c9b229cbd 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-2021-4c9b229cbd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4c9b229cbd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4c9b229cbd has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.