Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/pcg-cpp.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/pcg-cpp-0.98.1-1.20210910gitffd522e.fc34.src.rpm Description: This code provides an implementation of the PCG family of random number generators, which are fast, statistically excellent, and offer a number of useful features. Full details can be found at the PCG-Random website (http://www.pcg-random.org/). This version of the code provides many family members – if you just want one simple generator, you may prefer the minimal C version of the library. There are two kinds of generator, normal generators and extended generators. Extended generators provide k dimensional equidistribution and can perform party tricks, but generally speaking most people only need the normal generators. There are two ways to access the generators, using a convenience typedef or by using the underlying templates directly (similar to C++11’s std::mt19937 typedef vs its std::mersenne_twister_engine template). For most users, the convenience typedef is what you want, and probably you’re fine with pcg32 for 32-bit numbers. If you want 64-bit numbers, either use pcg64 (or, if you’re on a 32-bit system, making 64 bits from two calls to pcg32_k2 may be faster). Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75468189 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75468191 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75468195 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75468196 This is a relatively straightforward C++ header-only library with tests that are built using plain make. This package will be used for unbundling this library from https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-graph-tool (and hopefully fixing some platform-specific build failures in the bundled version). Accordingly, @neuro-sig will be given commit privileges.
LGTM XXX APPROVED XXX Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ^ %autorelease in use ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Apache License 2.0". 84 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2003169-pcg- cpp/licensecheck.txt [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. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 pcg-cpp- devel ^ Header only package [x]: Package functions as described. ^ Tests all pass. [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. [-]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/imneme/pcg-cpp/archive/ffd522e7188bef30a00c74dc7eb9de5faff90092/pcg-cpp-ffd522e7188bef30a00c74dc7eb9de5faff90092.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 81e4ab1936971627e6cc49fba279d0891b657d4397fc7940f6e751a37e4fdc94 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 81e4ab1936971627e6cc49fba279d0891b657d4397fc7940f6e751a37e4fdc94 Requires -------- pcg-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pcg-cpp-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pcg-cpp-devel: pcg-cpp-devel pcg-cpp-devel(x86-64) pcg-cpp-static pcg-cpp-doc: pcg-cpp-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2003169 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Java, fonts, Perl, R, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Manually run rpmlint: rpmlint *.rpm ../srpm-unpacked/* ============================================================= 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 pcg-cpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation pcg-cpp.spec:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog pcg-cpp.spec:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog ============================== 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==============================
Thanks for the review!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pcg-cpp
FEDORA-2021-3e4e4cc9ce has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3e4e4cc9ce
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-6ed15156aa has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-6ed15156aa
FEDORA-2021-26b1a3f388 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-26b1a3f388
FEDORA-2021-1e7967a02f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1e7967a02f
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c641e4d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c641e4d5
FEDORA-2021-3e4e4cc9ce 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-2021-3e4e4cc9ce \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3e4e4cc9ce See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-1e7967a02f 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-2021-1e7967a02f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1e7967a02f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c641e4d5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c641e4d5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-6ed15156aa 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-2021-6ed15156aa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-26b1a3f388 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-26b1a3f388 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-26b1a3f388 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-3e4e4cc9ce has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c641e4d5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-1e7967a02f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-26b1a3f388 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-6ed15156aa has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.