Bug 1989291 - Review Request: docopt-cpp - docopt C++11 Port
Summary: Review Request: docopt-cpp - docopt C++11 Port
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-08-02 20:38 UTC by Petr Menšík
Modified: 2021-12-02 02:02 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-12-02 01:14:45 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
code: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Petr Menšík 2021-08-02 20:38:58 UTC
Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/docopt-cpp.spec
SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/docopt-cpp-0.6.3-1.fc35.src.rpm

Description:
docopt creates beautiful command-line interfaces

Isn't it awesome how getopt (and boost::program_options for you fancy folk!)
generate help messages based on your code?! These timeless functions have been
around for decades and have proven we don't need anything better, right?

Hell no! You know what's awesome? It's when the option parser is generated
based on the beautiful help message that you write yourself! This way you
don't need to write this stupid repeatable parser-code, and instead can
write only the help message-the way you want it.

This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.

This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support).

Fedora Account System Username: pemensik

Comment 1 Petr Menšík 2021-08-02 20:39:02 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73165862

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2021-11-11 15:41:41 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== Issues =====

- The spec file has mixed tabs and spaces. See rpmlint output:

    docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 13)
    docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 13)

  You can fix this with:

    sed -r -i 's/\t/        /g' docopt-cpp.spec

- The description contains lines longer than 80 characters. Please wrap to 80
  characters or narrower.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description

  See rpmlint output:
    docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
    docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support).
    docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
    docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support).

- The Summary in the -devel package should start with a capital letter if
  practical. Instead of:

    Summary:        developer files for a docopt C++11 Port

  consider:

    Summary:        Developer files for a docopt C++11 Port

  Similarly, I think a better summary for the base package would be the one
  under “About” on the upstream GitHub page:

    Summary:         C++11 port of docopt

  See rpmlint output:
    docopt-cpp.src: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port
    docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port
    docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized developer files for a docopt C++11 Port

- The changelog is not correctly formatted. Change:

    * Mon Aug 02 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik>

  to:

    * Mon Aug 02 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> - 0.6.3-1

  See rpmlint output:

    docopt-cpp.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
    docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
    docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog

- You can and should build and run the tests. Add:

    BuildRequires:  python3-devel

  Change

    %cmake
    %cmake_build

  to

    %cmake -DWITH_TESTS=ON
    %cmake_build
    2to3 -w %{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests
    %py3_shebang_fix %{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests

  and add

    %check
    %{_vpath_builddir}/run_tests

  after the %install section.

===== Suggestions (no change required) =====

- This is not required in any current Fedora release:

    %undefine __cmake_in_source_build

  since out-of-source builds are the default. I suggest removing it *unless*
  you plan to support EPEL8 from the same spec file.

  Relevant documentation:
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros

- This is pointless and can be removed since you are not actually using
  %forgemeta and %forgesource:

    %global tag0 v%{version}

  In fact, since v%{version} is the tag that is “guessed” for packaging a
  release from GitHub, it would be pointless even if you were using %forgemeta
  and %forgesource.

  See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_release_example
  for relevant documentation.

- Instead of repeating the main description text, you can do something like:

    %global common_description %{expand: \
    docopt creates beautiful command-line interfaces
    
    Isn't it awesome how getopt (and boost::program_options for you fancy folk!)
    generate help messages based on your code?! These timeless functions have been
    around for decades and have proven we don’t need anything better, right?
    
    Hell no! You know what’s awesome? It’s when the option parser is generated
    based on the beautiful help message that you write yourself! This way you don’t
    need to write this stupid repeatable parser-code, and instead can write only
    the help message-the way you want it.}
    
    %description
    %{common_description}

    […]

    %description devel
    %{common_description}
    
    This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and
    we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the
    original.
    
    This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library
    (in particular, one with regex support).

    Contains developer headers and library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a code
    to be compiled.

  (This is a common pattern in Python packaging.)

- I am not sure what either these messages are about. I don’t see any problems,
  so perhaps they are spurious:

    docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
    docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2

- This message seems to be complaining that the library major version is not in
  the package name, which is not something the Fedora guidelines ask for. I
  don’t think anything needs to be changed here.

    docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0

===== 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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License
     1.0", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 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).
[?]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp/archive/v0.6.3/docopt-cpp-0.6.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632


Requires
--------
docopt-cpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    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)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

docopt-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    docopt-cpp(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

docopt-cpp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
docopt-cpp:
    docopt-cpp
    docopt-cpp(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-devel:
    cmake(docopt)
    docopt-cpp-devel
    docopt-cpp-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(docopt)

docopt-cpp-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    docopt-cpp-debuginfo
    docopt-cpp-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-debugsource:
    docopt-cpp-debugsource
    docopt-cpp-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1989291
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
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: 4

docopt-cpp.src: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port
docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized docopt C++11 Port
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized developer files for a docopt C++11 Port
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
docopt-cpp.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
docopt-cpp.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 13)
docopt-cpp.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 13)
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support).
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This is a port of the docopt.py module (https://github.com/docopt/docopt), and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This port is written in C++11 and also requires a good C++11 standard library (in particular, one with regex support).
 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings, 6 badness; has taken 0.3 s

Comment 3 Petr Menšík 2021-11-12 13:45:21 UTC
Thanks for review! Updated it a while ago, but forgot to refresh also fedorapeople push.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pemensik/docopt.cpp/fedora/docopt-cpp.spec
SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/docopt.cpp/docopt-cpp-0.6.3-3.fc36.src.rpm 

Can you check also update?

Chosen just classic patch instead of 2to3 run during build. Especially because the change seems to be 100% compatible between python2 and python3, there seems no danger. Let upstream also evaluate it.

Comment 4 Ben Beasley 2021-11-12 14:33:16 UTC
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #3)

> Chosen just classic patch instead of 2to3 run during build. Especially
> because the change seems to be 100% compatible between python2 and python3,
> there seems no danger. Let upstream also evaluate it.

That sounds like a good plan.

Would you mind checking the SRPM URL? I am getting a 404 error.

Comment 5 Petr Menšík 2021-11-12 14:49:45 UTC
Indeed. Sorry, made mistake when modifying previous one.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pemensik/docopt.cpp/fedora/docopt-cpp.spec
SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/docopt-cpp-0.6.3-3.fc36.src.rpm

Comment 6 Ben Beasley 2021-11-12 16:49:04 UTC
Thanks! This is closer. I do think there are a few things that should be
re-examined, below.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
  (OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec)

- The guidelines say:

    Every package that uses Python (at runtime and/or build time) and/or
    installs Python modules MUST explicitly include BuildRequires:
    python3-devel in its .spec file, even if Python is not actually invoked
    during build time.
    
    […]
    
    The *-devel package brings in relevant RPM macros. It may also enable
    automated or manual checks: for example, Python maintainers use this
    requirement to list packages that use Python in some way and might be
    affected by planned changes.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_buildrequire_python3_devel

  Therefore, you must replace

    BuildRequires:  python3 python-srpm-macros

  with

    BuildRequires:  python3-devel

- The %{__cmake_builddir} macro is private and at risk of being removed. In an
  out-of-source build, it is the same as %{_vpath_builddir}, and you are
  supposed to use that instead.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros

  I am still not sure if you are trying to target EPEL with this spec file, but
  I have confirmed this works on EPEL8 (with “%undefine
  __cmake_in_source_build”), and I know you’re not targeting EPEL7 because it
  would require several other spec file changes.

- Rpmlint reports:

    docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-3
    docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-3

  I am not aware of a guideline in Fedora on whether localized dates are
  acceptable in changelog dates. The guidelines request American English
  spelling in summary and description fields, and the changelogs are also
  visible to end users (“rpm -q --changelog …”), so I’m inclined to think that
  POSIX-locale (LC_TIME=C) date format would be better here.

  Furthermore, “rpmbuild” considers this date format an error, so I can’t even
  do “rpmbuild -bs” on a spec file with dates expanded this way.

  The thing is that you’re using %autochangelog, so the date format will be
  controlled by the locale on the koji builders once the package is imported,
  so I’m not sure if there’s anything you need to change here. You might need
  to re-build the source RPM with LC_TIME=C exported if you’re going to use
  “fedpkg import”.

  I wonder if some component (maybe rpmautospec? maybe some other things too?)
  should have an issue filed asking it not to respect system locale when
  formatting changelog dates.

- While it is not harmful, you can remove

    %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp

  since you are not using %forgemeta/%forgesource, and you do not use
  %forgeurl0 explicitly anywhere in the spec file.

- The description still contains lines longer than 80 characters. Please wrap to 80
  characters or narrower.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description

  See rpmlint output:

    docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
    docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
    docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Contains developer headers and a library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a code

Notes (no change required):
===========================

- This is not required in any current Fedora release:

    %undefine __cmake_in_source_build

  since out-of-source builds are the default. I suggest removing it *unless*
  you plan to support EPEL8 from the same spec file.

  Relevant documentation:
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros

- I am not sure what either these messages are about. I don’t see any problems,
  so perhaps they are spurious:

    docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
    docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2

- This message seems to be complaining that the library major version is not in
  the package name, which is not something the Fedora guidelines ask for. I
  don’t think anything needs to be changed here.

    docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0

===== 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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License
     1.0", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-
     cpp/20211112/1989291-docopt-cpp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.

     (%autochangelog generates localized dates; see Issues)

[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.

     (except localized changelog dates; see Issues)

[-]: 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 1 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]: 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 docopt-
     cpp-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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp/archive/v0.6.3/docopt-cpp-0.6.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632


Requires
--------
docopt-cpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    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)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

docopt-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    docopt-cpp(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

docopt-cpp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
docopt-cpp:
    docopt-cpp
    docopt-cpp(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-devel:
    cmake(docopt)
    docopt-cpp-devel
    docopt-cpp-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(docopt)

docopt-cpp-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    docopt-cpp-debuginfo
    docopt-cpp-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-debugsource:
    docopt-cpp-debugsource
    docopt-cpp-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/20211112/1989291-docopt-cpp/srpm/docopt-cpp.spec	2021-11-12 10:25:36.796933902 -0500
+++ /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/20211112/1989291-docopt-cpp/srpm-unpacked/docopt-cpp.spec	2021-11-12 08:40:02.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 3;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp
 
@@ -82,3 +91,10 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-3
+- Add check section with tests running
+
+* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-2
+- Update descriptions according to review
+
+* St srp 04 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-1
+- Initial commit with %autorelease


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1989291
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Java, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, R, fonts, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
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: 6

docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug
docopt-cpp.src: W: strange-permission docopt-cpp.spec 600
docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-3
docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-3
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-3.fc36.x86_64.debug
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
docopt-cpp.spec:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
docopt-cpp.spec:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2
docopt-cpp.src: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long and we have tried to maintain full feature parity (and code structure) as the original.
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Contains developer headers and a library. Install if docopt.cpp is used in a code
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/58/5e2a6642ef2d009f399be7c8ca0dcfab9530ff ../../../.build-id/58/5e2a6642ef2d009f399be7c8ca0dcfab9530ff
 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 9 warnings, 13 badness; has taken 0.5 s

Comment 7 Petr Menšík 2021-11-12 18:10:13 UTC
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pemensik/docopt.cpp/fedora/docopt-cpp.spec
SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/docopt-cpp-0.6.3-4.fc36.src.rpm

Ah, I am checking rpmlint *.spec and that does not report too long lines.
Changelog errors are related to %autorelease used. fedora-review tools does not support it well, locale related issues are definitely caused by it.

Used forge url, I wanted to try package managed by it anyway together with autospec. Just reused URL from it.

Comment 8 Ben Beasley 2021-11-14 15:10:38 UTC
Thanks. I’ll re-review as soon as I have a chance.

Comment 9 Ben Beasley 2021-11-17 14:49:10 UTC
I still have a few recommendations, below, but I think this package is compliant with the packaging guidelines as-is, so it is APPROVED.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

  OK: fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec

- The %{__cmake_builddir} macro is private and at risk of being removed. In an
  out-of-source build, it is the same as %{_vpath_builddir}, and you are
  supposed to use that instead.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros

  I am still not sure if you are trying to target EPEL with this spec file, but
  I have confirmed this works on EPEL8 (with “%undefine
  __cmake_in_source_build”), and I know you’re not targeting EPEL7 because it
  would require several other spec file changes.

- These really aren’t needed, as they are always present in mock or koji build
  environments. There are almost no packages in the distribution that currently
  have explicit BR’s on these. I suggest removing them.

  BuildRequires:  rpmautospec redhat-rpm-config

Notes (no change required):
===========================

- You could shorten the Patch0 URL, if you liked, from

    Patch1:         https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/docopt/docopt.cpp/pull/145.patch#/docopt-0.6.3-run-tests.patch

  to

    Patch1:         %{url}/pull/145.patch#/docopt-0.6.3-run-tests.patch

  which redirects to the URL you used.

- All rpmlint messages appear to be related to localized dates in the change
  log or to be spurious. (Several of them I see on basically every package with
  rpmlint 2.x.)

===== 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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License
     1.0", "MIT License". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-
     cpp/20211117/1989291-docopt-cpp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Changelog in prescribed format.

     Localized dates seem to be an rpmautospec issue and will hopefully be
     resolved on import

[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.

     (except localized dates in changelog, blamed on rpmautospec)

[-]: 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 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in docopt-
     cpp-devel

     The review tool is confused here; the fully-versioned dependency is
      present.

[x]: Package functions as described.

     (Tests pass)

[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]: 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:
[-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)

     OK (rpmautospec)

[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/docopt/docopt.cpp/archive/v0.6.3/docopt.cpp-0.6.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28af5a0c482c6d508d22b14d588a3b0bd9ff97135f99c2814a5aa3cbff1d6632


Requires
--------
docopt-cpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    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)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

docopt-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    docopt-cpp(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

docopt-cpp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
docopt-cpp:
    docopt-cpp
    docopt-cpp(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-devel:
    cmake(docopt)
    docopt-cpp-devel
    docopt-cpp-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(docopt)

docopt-cpp-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    docopt-cpp-debuginfo
    docopt-cpp-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-4.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

docopt-cpp-debugsource:
    docopt-cpp-debugsource
    docopt-cpp-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/20211117/1989291-docopt-cpp/srpm/docopt-cpp.spec	2021-11-17 08:56:51.789005146 -0500
+++ /home/reviewer/1989291-docopt-cpp/20211117/1989291-docopt-cpp/srpm-unpacked/docopt-cpp.spec	2021-11-12 12:52:29.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 4;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global forgeurl0 %{url}
 
@@ -84,3 +93,13 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-4
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-3
+- Add check section with tests running
+
+* Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-2
+- Update descriptions according to review
+
+* St srp 04 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-1
+- Initial commit with %autorelease


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1989291
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, R, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
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: 5

docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-4.fc36.x86_64.debug
docopt-cpp.src: W: strange-permission docopt-cpp.spec 600
docopt-cpp.spec: E: specfile-error error: bad date in %changelog: Pá lis 12 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik> 0.6.3-4
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2-0.6.3-4.fc36.x86_64.debug
docopt-cpp.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/docopt/docopt.cpp/pull/145.patch#/docopt-0.6.3-run-tests.patch
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
docopt-cpp.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
docopt-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on docopt-cpp*/docopt-cpp-libs/libdocopt-cpp* = 0.6.3
docopt-cpp.spec:105: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
docopt-cpp.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libdocopt.so.0.6.2 libdocopt.so.0.6.2
docopt-cpp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/72/1a79b3eac5790a96d36da17d3830633335f6b6 ../../../.build-id/72/1a79b3eac5790a96d36da17d3830633335f6b6
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 9 warnings, 9 badness; has taken 0.6 s

Comment 10 Petr Menšík 2021-11-19 14:31:55 UTC
Thank you for your work!

Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-11-19 14:57:52 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/docopt-cpp

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2021-11-23 09:42:01 UTC
FEDORA-2021-4e2dd1cc7c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4e2dd1cc7c

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2021-11-23 09:42:51 UTC
FEDORA-2021-0a16a50318 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0a16a50318

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2021-11-23 09:43:42 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30697efbc9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30697efbc9

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2021-11-24 01:56:29 UTC
FEDORA-2021-4e2dd1cc7c 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-2021-4e2dd1cc7c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4e2dd1cc7c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2021-11-24 01:57:12 UTC
FEDORA-2021-0a16a50318 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-0a16a50318 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0a16a50318

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2021-11-24 02:09:58 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30697efbc9 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-2021-30697efbc9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2021-12-02 01:14:45 UTC
FEDORA-2021-0a16a50318 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2021-12-02 01:39:10 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30697efbc9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2021-12-02 02:02:53 UTC
FEDORA-2021-4e2dd1cc7c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.