Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/c4core.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/c4core-0.1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: c4core is a library of low-level C++ utilities, written with low-latency projects in mind. Some of the utilities provided by c4core have already equivalent functionality in the C++ standard, but they are provided as the existing C++ equivalent may be insufficient (eg, std::string_view), inefficient (eg, std::string), heavy (eg streams), or plainly unusable on some platforms/projects, (eg exceptions); some other utilities have equivalent under consideration for C++ standardization; and yet some other utilities have (to my knowledge) no equivalent under consideration. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76228618 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76228619 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76228620 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76228621 This is a key dependency for rapidyaml; that, in turn, will be required for the upcoming 0.18.0 release of jsonnet.
Upstream has released a couple of new versions, but has also introduced a regression (https://github.com/biojppm/c4core/issues/39) affecting aarch64. I expect there will be a new release merging my PR for s390x support (https://github.com/biojppm/c4core/pulls) and dealing with the regression. I’ll prepare an updated submission with the latest version at that time. There will be no significant packaging differences in these updates; only dropped patches and a version and soversion bump.
The PR link should have been https://github.com/biojppm/c4core/pull/38.
New submission coming after the 0.1.5 release, which fixes an aarch64 regression. Probably today.
New spec: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20210927/c4core.spec New SRPM: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20210927/c4core-0.1.5-1.fc34.src.rpm New Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76371975 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76371976 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76371977 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76371978
Upstream has released 0.1.6: New spec: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211009/c4core.spec New SRPM: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211009/c4core-0.1.6-1.fc34.src.rpm New Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76971490 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76971491 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76971493 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76971494
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/sandbox/review/2007690-c4core/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. [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 9 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: [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [-]: 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: c4core-0.1.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm c4core-devel-0.1.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm c4core-debuginfo-0.1.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm c4core-debugsource-0.1.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm c4core-0.1.6-1.fc36.src.rpm c4core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g c4core-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g c4core-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation c4core-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/include/c4/ext/debugbreak/debugbreak.h /usr/include/debugbreak.h c4core-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/include/c4/ext/fast_float/include/fast_float /usr/include/fast_float Note: can be ignored, since "debugbreak-devel" and "fast_float-devel" are dependencies for "c4core-devel" — so this issue is auto-resolved. c4core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g c4core.src:133: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libc4core.so* c4core.src:135: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/cmake/c4core c4core.src:178: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog Note: false positive, probably can be improved with cmake build options (?) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. c4core.spec:133: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libc4core.so* c4core.spec:135: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/cmake/c4core c4core.spec:178: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: c4core-debuginfo-0.1.6-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- c4core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g c4core-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eg -> eh, e, g c4core-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation c4core-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/include/c4/ext/debugbreak/debugbreak.h /usr/include/debugbreak.h c4core-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/include/c4/ext/fast_float/include/fast_float /usr/include/fast_float 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/biojppm/c4core/archive/v0.1.6/c4core-0.1.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 45f44916e8d381212a15e22b8fcab7910cded8e421f6c42496f3ce8f0aa40906 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 45f44916e8d381212a15e22b8fcab7910cded8e421f6c42496f3ce8f0aa40906 Requires -------- c4core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) c4core-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): c4core(x86-64) cmake-filesystem cmake-filesystem(x86-64) debugbreak-devel(x86-64) fast_float-devel(x86-64) libc4core.so.0.1.6()(64bit) c4core-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): c4core-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- c4core: c4core c4core(x86-64) libc4core.so.0.1.6()(64bit) c4core-devel: bundled(SG14) bundled(ag-random) c4core-devel c4core-devel(x86-64) cmake(c4core) c4core-debuginfo: c4core-debuginfo c4core-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libc4core.so.0.1.6-0.1.6-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) c4core-debugsource: c4core-debugsource c4core-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2007690 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, R, Java, Haskell, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH The package is APPROVED.
Thanks for the review! Let me know if you have any other packages you’d like me to review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/c4core
FEDORA-2021-42349c23d4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-42349c23d4
FEDORA-2021-0263710997 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0263710997
FEDORA-2021-70eb47849b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-70eb47849b
FEDORA-2021-70eb47849b 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-2021-70eb47849b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-70eb47849b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-0263710997 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-2021-0263710997 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0263710997 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-42349c23d4 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-2021-42349c23d4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-42349c23d4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-70eb47849b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-0263710997 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-42349c23d4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.