Bug 2025359 - Review Request: c4fs - C++ file system utilities
Summary: Review Request: c4fs - C++ file system utilities
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pat Riehecky
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-11-22 00:01 UTC by Ben Beasley
Modified: 2022-01-06 01:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-12-27 19:55:11 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
riehecky: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ben Beasley 2021-11-22 00:01:17 UTC
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/c4fs.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/c4fs-0.0.1-1.20211120git8856c4f.fc35.src.rpm

Description:

C++ file system utilities.

Fedora Account System Username: music

Koji scratch builds:

F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79138030
F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79138031
F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79138033

This is a dependency for the test suite for rapidyaml.

Comment 2 Pat Riehecky 2021-12-23 15:52:28 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


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


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: 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]: 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:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 14 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /tmp/bar/2025359-c4fs/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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).
[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
-------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
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: 32, packages: 1

c4fs.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: c4fs-8856c4f-external-c4core.patch
 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



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



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


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/biojppm/c4fs/archive/8856c4f72adce3e7a1f47dee7a4b37dc5948c848/c4fs-8856c4f72adce3e7a1f47dee7a4b37dc5948c848.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 703934e6a732a4463b11e8f2c10a59e6570d979a48c801f126cef20a38619f35
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 703934e6a732a4463b11e8f2c10a59e6570d979a48c801f126cef20a38619f35


Requires
--------
c4fs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libc4core.so.0.1.7()(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_1.3.7)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

c4fs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    c4core-devel(x86-64)
    c4fs(x86-64)
    cmake-filesystem
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libc4fs.so.0.0.1()(64bit)

c4fs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

c4fs-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
c4fs:
    c4fs
    c4fs(x86-64)
    libc4fs.so.0.0.1()(64bit)

c4fs-devel:
    c4fs-devel
    c4fs-devel(x86-64)
    cmake(c4fs)

c4fs-debuginfo:
    c4fs-debuginfo
    c4fs-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libc4fs.so.0.0.1-0.0.1-1.20211120git8856c4f.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

c4fs-debugsource:
    c4fs-debugsource
    c4fs-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2025359
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, fonts, R, Java, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2021-12-23 16:21:54 UTC
Thanks! I have requested the repository.

In future package reviews, please note that you should manually verify the items with “[ ]:”
 and mark them appropriately.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-12-27 17:30:40 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/c4fs

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2021-12-27 19:51:46 UTC
FEDORA-2021-3cda673eb4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3cda673eb4

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2021-12-27 19:55:11 UTC
FEDORA-2021-3cda673eb4 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2021-12-27 22:19:43 UTC
FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2021-12-27 22:28:11 UTC
FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2021-12-28 01:26:14 UTC
FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1 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-2021-1e0a6694d1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1

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

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2021-12-28 01:59:24 UTC
FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692 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-2021-499c4aa692 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692

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

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2021-12-28 13:10:27 UTC
FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2021-12-28 13:10:40 UTC
FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2021-12-29 01:03:42 UTC
FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1 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-2021-1e0a6694d1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1

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

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2021-12-29 01:12:11 UTC
FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692 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-2021-499c4aa692 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692

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

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2022-01-06 00:51:01 UTC
FEDORA-2021-1e0a6694d1 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2022-01-06 01:11:03 UTC
FEDORA-2021-499c4aa692 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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.