This package got retired (because I didn't see the announcements and didn't step up to maintain it) and needs a review to be un-retired. The spec is still on the f36 branch (and I just made a small fix to it yesterday so it still builds on f37 and rawhide). Spec URL: https://jwakely.fedorapeople.org/pstreams-devel.spec SRPM URL: https://jwakely.fedorapeople.org/pstreams-devel-1.0.3-6.fc38.src.rpm This is a tiny package consisting of a single C++ header, but useful to package for Fedora so it can be easily installed in /usr/include. I'm the upstream author and want to maintain it in Fedora. There is a build in F36 already. It can be built for rawhide like so: fedpkg clone pstreams-devel cd pstreams-devel git checkout f36 fedpkg --release=f38 mockbuild
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pstreams-devel See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1290240 bytes in 77 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header 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", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/pstreams-devel/2127414-pstreams- devel/licensecheck.txt [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. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [!]: %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]: 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 ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pstreams/pstreams-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e9ca807bc6046840deae63207183f9ac516e67187d035429772a5fc7bd3e8fc 8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9ca807bc6046840deae63207183f9ac516e67187d035429772a5fc7bd3e8fc 8 Requires -------- pstreams-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pstreams-devel: pstreams-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2127414 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Consider using a separate documentation package b) Can the tests be run as well? Possibly excluding those that need network access.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pstreams-devel > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Yes, because this is to unretire an existing package, so obviously it uses the existing name. > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 1290240 bytes in 77 files. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_documentation I'm not sure the documentation is even worth shipping. I'll either remove it or put it in a separate -doc subpackage (which would leave the main -devel package containing exactly one header file and a license file). > ===== MUST items ===== > [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. No ExcludeArch is required. > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. The spec file says: make %{?_smp_mflags} EXTRA_CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS" make docs And the 'docs' target runs a single perl command as a prerequisite, then just runs Doxygen. There is no point running two commands (which cannot happen in parallel) with -j. > [?]: Package functions as described. It's been in Fedora for many years until retired early this year. > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. No, because it's a noarch package consisting of a single header file, there are no binary files to install. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. The tests run as part of the %build step, I'll move them to %check. > Comments: > a) Consider using a separate documentation package Will do. > b) Can the tests be run as well? Possibly excluding those that need network > access. They already run. I'll move them to %check to make that more obvious. Thanks for the review.
Updated: Spec URL: https://jwakely.fedorapeople.org/pstreams-devel.spec SRPM URL: https://jwakely.fedorapeople.org/pstreams-devel-1.0.3-7.fc38.src.rpm
Thanks for your changes. Comments: a) In the build log, get warnings of the following type: warning: Tag 'TCL_SUBST' at line 237 of file 'Doxyfile' has become obsolete. To avoid this warning please remove this line from your configuration file or upgrade it using "doxygen -u" This seems minor, but maybe problematic in future. b) The output of the tests is piped into dev/null It may be helpful to have these in the build log, though not strictly necessary. c) Get the following output in the build log for the tests: test_pstreams EXITED WITH STATUS 3 test_minimum Is this expected?
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > Thanks for your changes. Comments: > > a) In the build log, get warnings of the following type: > warning: Tag 'TCL_SUBST' at line 237 of file 'Doxyfile' has become obsolete. > To avoid this warning please remove this line from your > configuration file or upgrade it using "doxygen -u" > This seems minor, but maybe problematic in future. No, obsolete Doxygen tags are just ignored, so I don't think it will ever cause a problem. But the Doxygen config is quite old so I'll definitely regenerate it. > b) The output of the tests is piped into dev/null > It may be helpful to have these in the build log, though not strictly > necessary. Good idea. > c) Get the following output in the build log for the tests: > test_pstreams EXITED WITH STATUS 3 > test_minimum > Is this expected? Oh, I didn't notice that. I'll check it. Maybe it's something that doesn't work in the koji environment.
The test failure is because the 'hostname' command isn't installed in the buildroot: sh: line 1: hostname: command not found Test r1: Fail! I'll decide whether to add a BuildRequires:hostname or change the test to use something else.
Updated: Spec URL: https://jwakely.fedorapeople.org/pstreams-devel.spec SRPM URL: https://jwakely.fedorapeople.org/pstreams-devel-1.0.3-6.fc38.src.rpm (N.B. NVR is back down to 1.0.3-6 again, which is in sync with what I'll be pushing to the f36 branch soon)
Rawhide scratch build with cleaner logs: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92417553
Still get Doxygen errors when running Fedora-review locally, but those do not appear in the koji log, so check that in future builds these do not appear. Otherwise seems good. Package approved.
I uploaded a new SRPM a few minutes after posting comment 7 here, so maybe you grabbed the old one. That still had a Doxyfile generated by doxygen-1.9.1 from F36, which gave warnings when used with rawhide's doxygen-1.9.5. The current SRPM at that URL has a patch updating it to a Doxyfile generate by rawhide's doxygen, which is the one in the koji build. Thanks for all the reviews!
Welcome. A review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091389 would be appreciated if time allows.
Package is now in repositories, closing review.