Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/gulrak-filesystem.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/gulrak-filesystem-1.5.8-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This is a header-only single-file std::filesystem compatible helper library, based on the C++17 and C++20 specs, but implemented for C++11, C++14, C++17 or C++20 (tightly following the C++17 standard with very few documented exceptions). It is currently tested on macOS 10.12/10.14/10.15, Windows 10, Ubuntu 18.04, Ubuntu 20.04, CentOS 7, CentOS 8, FreeBSD 12 and Alpine ARM/ARM64 Linux but should work on other systems too, as long as you have at least a C++11 compatible compiler. It should work with Android NDK, Emscripten and I even had reports of it being used on iOS (within sandboxing constraints) and with v1.5.6 there is experimental support for QNX. The support of Android NDK, Emscripten and QNX is not backed up by automated testing but PRs and bug reports are welcome for those too. It is of course in its own namespace ghc::filesystem to not interfere with a regular std::filesystem should you use it in a mixed C++17 environment (which is possible). Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72990479 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72990633 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=72990637 This package is not named “filesystem”, because that would be too generic, and it is not named “ghc-filesystem”, after its C++ namespace, because that would collide with the “ghc-” prefix used for Haskell packages (and, in fact, a “ghc-filesystem” already exists).
I will take this review.
This package is APPROVED. I agree that your choice of package name is probably the best one available. I do have two minor nitpicks, but they are not blocking issues: - Note the description-line-too-long complaint from rpmlint, due to a macro on line 53 of the spec file. - %cmake already invokes %set_build_flags, so there is no need for you to invoke it manually (see /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.cmake). It doesn't hurt, though. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [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. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [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 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: gulrak-filesystem-devel-1.5.8-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm gulrak-filesystem-1.5.8-1.fc36.src.rpm gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iOS -> OS, SOS, DOS gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The gulrak-filesystem-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gulrak-filesystem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS gulrak-filesystem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iOS -> OS, SOS, DOS gulrak-filesystem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging gulrak-filesystem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ghc -> chg gulrak-filesystem.src:90: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog gulrak-filesystem.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: https://github.com/gulrak/filesystem/pull/133.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rpmlint: 2.0.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gulrak-filesystem-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The gulrak-filesystem-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing ================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s ================= Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gulrak/filesystem/archive/v1.5.8/filesystem-1.5.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 726f8ccb2ec844f4c66cc4b572369497327df31b86c04cefad6b311964107139 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 726f8ccb2ec844f4c66cc4b572369497327df31b86c04cefad6b311964107139 Requires -------- gulrak-filesystem-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem cmake-filesystem(x86-64) Provides -------- gulrak-filesystem-devel: cmake(ghc_filesystem) gulrak-filesystem-devel gulrak-filesystem-devel(x86-64) gulrak-filesystem-static Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1988722 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Haskell, Python, Java, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gulrak-filesystem
Thanks for the review! > - Note the description-line-too-long complaint from rpmlint, due to a macro on > line 53 of the spec file. I will fix this on import. > - %cmake already invokes %set_build_flags, so there is no need for you to > invoke it manually (see /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.cmake). It doesn't > hurt, though. I will fix this, too. It’s left over from where I was adding some build flags for testing during initial packaging work. I removed the extra flags, but missed the %set_build_flags.
FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f
FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97
FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f 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-f9e8d9829f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.