Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tsl-sparse-map/tsl-sparse-map.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tsl-sparse-map/tsl-sparse-map-0.6.2-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: The sparse-map library is a C++ implementation of a memory efficient hash map and hash set. It uses open-addressing with sparse quadratic probing. The goal of the library is to be the most memory efficient possible, even at low load factor, while keeping reasonable performances. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79742906
A clean package. I have only one nit-pick, below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (OK: rpmautospec) - I think the sharing of %{_includedir}/tsl with other libraries authored by https://github.com/Tessil/ (Thibaut Goetghebuer-Planchon) should be made explicit. Please change: %{_includedir}/tsl to # Directory shared with other libraries by the same author, e.g. robin-map %dir %{_includedir}/tsl %{_includedir}/tsl/sparse_*.h Since the directory is shared, listing files more explicitly as suggested above is also helpful to understand what the package is installing. ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - Consider keeping an eye on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1141. If it is approved, you should be able to add BuildArch: noarch to the -devel subpackage. ===== 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]: 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2030549-tsl-sparse-map/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/tsl(robin-map- devel) Directory sharing is acceptable, but please see Issues for a suggestion to improve clarity and obviousness. [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. Header-only package. [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 30720 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 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]: Package functions as described. (based on tests passing) [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]: 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/Tessil/sparse-map/archive/v0.6.2/sparse-map-0.6.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7020c21e8752e59d72e37456cd80000e18671c803890a3e55ae36b295eba99f6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7020c21e8752e59d72e37456cd80000e18671c803890a3e55ae36b295eba99f6 Requires -------- tsl-sparse-map-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem Provides -------- tsl-sparse-map-devel: cmake(tsl-sparse-map) tsl-sparse-map-devel tsl-sparse-map-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2030549 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, PHP 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: 2 tsl-sparse-map.spec:55: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Davide is on vacation, and asked me to take over to unblock the package we need that depends on this. Nit addressed in: Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libs/tsl-sparse-map.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libs/tsl-sparse-map-0.6.2-1.fc35.src.rpm
Thanks! Approved by inspection of the spec file diff: --- srpm-unpacked/tsl-sparse-map.spec 2021-12-09 00:54:20.000000000 -0500 +++ 2030549-tsl-sparse-map/srpm-unpacked/tsl-sparse-map.spec 2021-12-15 19:50:20.000000000 -0500 @@ -48,7 +48,9 @@ %files devel %license LICENSE %doc README.md -%{_includedir}/tsl +# Directory shared with other libraries by the same author, e.g. robin-map +%dir %{_includedir}/tsl +%{_includedir}/tsl/sparse_*.h %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name} %changelog Note that the original submitter (Davide) still has to request the repo. Is that a problem?
Thanks! Not a problem, I think he'll be around but worst case I can just clone this review ticket and get another review
Thanks! Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo tsl-sparse-map 2030549 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39676
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tsl-sparse-map
Thanks! Branches requested for F34 and F35 tsl-sparse-map on rawhide [⇡] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --all-releases https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39787 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39788
FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5
FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c
FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22 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-2021-18c0cd3f22 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5 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-2021-7b9391e1c5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05 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-ef16daae05 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d1d17f223c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-18c0cd3f22 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-7b9391e1c5 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-ef16daae05 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.