SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04531970-simdjson/simdjson.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04531970-simdjson/simdjson-2.0.3-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Parsing gigabytes of JSON per second JSON is everywhere on the Internet. Servers spend a *lot* of time parsing it. We need a fresh approach. The simdjson library uses commonly available SIMD instructions and microparallel algorithms to parse JSON 4x faster than RapidJSON and 25x faster than JSON for Modern C++.
Unofficial review: 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: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [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. [?]: 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", "*No copyright* MIT License BSD 3-Clause License Boost Software License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* JSON License", "MIT License", "ISC License BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Boost Software License 1.0". 494 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/simdjson/2096621-simdjson/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [?]: 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 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [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). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in simdjson-devel [?]: 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. [?]: 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 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/simdjson/simdjson/archive/v2.0.3/simdjson-2.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1bcf65b3bd830bf8f747b8dd7126edd4bb7562bebb92698c1750acf4c979df6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1bcf65b3bd830bf8f747b8dd7126edd4bb7562bebb92698c1750acf4c979df6 Requires -------- simdjson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(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_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) simdjson-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libsimdjson.so.11()(64bit) simdjson-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): simdjson-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- simdjson: libsimdjson.so.11()(64bit) simdjson simdjson(x86-64) simdjson-devel: cmake(simdjson) simdjson-devel simdjson-devel(x86-64) simdjson-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsimdjson.so.11.0.0-2.0.3-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) simdjson-debuginfo simdjson-debuginfo(x86-64) simdjson-debugsource: simdjson-debugsource simdjson-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2096621 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Python, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: 1) The doc directory contains markdown files. It may be helpful for users to have these packaged. 2) Is it possible to make a build on Copr to check that it will work on supported architectures, x86_64, AArch64 and ARM-hfp https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_support 3) jsoncpp is already packaged, https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/jsoncpp/jsoncpp/ can the packaged version rather than the bundled version be used? Note that jsoncpp has a different license 4) Why does the build require git? 5) For full tests, may wish to compile with Developer Mode to get full test suite https://github.com/simdjson/simdjson/blob/master/HACKING.md - this seems to require google_benchmark which is packaged https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/google-benchmark/google-benchmark/
Hello, I upgraded the spec file. Simdjson is different than JsonCpp because it uses SIMD instructions and microparallel algorithms to parse the Json files. Btw we can't compile the developer mode for now because of a gcc (12.1.1) bug [1] on Fedora36 and Rawhide. SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04695423-simdjson/simdjson.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04695423-simdjson/simdjson-2.2.2-1.fc37.src.rpm 1: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329
The spec URL above is different from the spec in the SRPM. I'm assuming the latter is the latest. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License BSD 3-Clause License Boost Software License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* JSON License", "MIT License", "ISC License BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Boost Software License 1.0". 504 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jonathan/fedora- review/2096621-simdjson/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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]: Dist tag is present. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in simdjson-devel [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. [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 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/simdjson/simdjson/archive/v2.2.2/simdjson-2.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0e36beab240bd827c1103b4c66672491595930067871e20946d67b07758c010 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0e36beab240bd827c1103b4c66672491595930067871e20946d67b07758c010 Requires -------- simdjson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(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_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) simdjson-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libsimdjson.so.13()(64bit) simdjson-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): simdjson-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): simdjson-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- simdjson: libsimdjson.so.13()(64bit) simdjson simdjson(x86-64) simdjson-devel: cmake(simdjson) simdjson-devel simdjson-devel(x86-64) simdjson-doc: simdjson-doc simdjson-doc(x86-64) simdjson-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsimdjson.so.13.0.0-2.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) simdjson-debuginfo simdjson-debuginfo(x86-64) simdjson-debugsource: simdjson-debugsource simdjson-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2096621 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Python, Perl, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: 1) The "License:" value to be SPDX format per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names - License: ASL 2.0 AND MIT + License: Apache-2.0 AND MIT 2) You need to add the license into all sub-packages and document the license breakdown in the spec file.
Hello Jonathan, I updated the spec file thank you. SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04704482-simdjson/simdjson.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04704482-simdjson/simdjson-2.2.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Looks good! Review is APPROVED! If you could tackle one (or more) of my pending reviews I'd be very appreciative! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&component=Package%20Review&email1=jonathan%40almalinux.org&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=equals&known_name=My%20review%20requests&list_id=12806537&product=Fedora&query_based_on=My%20review%20requests&query_format=advanced
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/simdjson
Thank you all..