Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/c4log.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/c4log-0.0.1-1.20220113gitb8b86f3.fc35.src.rpm Description: C++ type-safe logging, mean and lean. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81200840 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81200843 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81200849 This is a dependency for the test suite for rapidyaml. The packaging is almost identical to c4fs, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025359.
Dropped “forge” macros and instead adjusted snapshot info field to be in Version rather than Release, as advised by current guidelines. Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220228/c4log.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220228/c4log-0.0.1^20220113gitb8b86f3-1.fc35.src.rpm F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83485278 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83485280 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83485281 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83485282
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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]: 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", "MIT License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/foo/2040461-c4log/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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. [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]: 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.
Thank you for the review! Repository requested.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/c4log
FEDORA-2022-424f22e053 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-424f22e053
FEDORA-2022-424f22e053 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-0a99fa4c0c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0a99fa4c0c
FEDORA-2022-4454a88a50 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4454a88a50
FEDORA-2022-c7d457d13e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c7d457d13e
FEDORA-2022-4454a88a50 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-2022-4454a88a50 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4454a88a50 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-c7d457d13e 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-2022-c7d457d13e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c7d457d13e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-0a99fa4c0c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-0a99fa4c0c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0a99fa4c0c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-4b12593064 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-4b12593064` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4b12593064 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-c7d457d13e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-4454a88a50 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-4b12593064 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.