Bug 2157252 - Review Request: workflow - C++ parallel computing and asynchronous networking engine
Summary: Review Request: workflow - C++ parallel computing and asynchronous networking...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Troy Curtis
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/sogou/workflow
Whiteboard:
: 2172112 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-01-01 08:34 UTC by Benson Muite
Modified: 2023-03-06 05:56 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-03-06 05:56:02 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
troy: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5193447 to 5196659 (3.98 KB, patch)
2023-01-03 04:05 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5216267 to 5556896 (2.25 KB, patch)
2023-02-22 11:59 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5556896 to 5566181 (2.85 KB, patch)
2023-02-25 17:19 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff

Description Benson Muite 2023-01-01 08:34:09 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05193381-workflow/workflow.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05193381-workflow/workflow-0.10.4-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: As Sogou`s C++ server engine, Sogou C++ Workflow supports almost all back-end C++ online services of Sogou, including all search services, cloud input method, online advertisements, etc., handling more than 10 billion requests every day. This is an enterprise-level programming engine in light and elegant design which can satisfy most C++ back-end development requirements.
Fedora Account System Username: fed500

Comment 1 Troy Curtis 2023-01-02 04:35:30 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- The glob in the main package library should explicitly list up to the SONAME:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
Looking at the SONAME of the library, it looks like it should have:

%{_libdir}/libworkflow.so.0
%{_libdir}/libworkflow.so.0.*

- Since this package provides shared library builds, the static library should be excluded without a compelling reason. If the static library should be packaged, a note indicating the rationale would be a helpful reference.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries

- Since the description is identical in all subpackages, a "_description" macro can defined once and reused in each section. This is only a nicety and certainly not required.

- The -devel shouldn't need an explicit requires on the base packages since the auto dependency generator picks up on the libworkflow.so.0 requirement.

- Looks like the crc32c source file is covered under a non-Apache-2 license, so it should be included in License field.

- It appears the rbtree.* files are covered under GPL. I don't believe that is allowed to then distribute the project under Apache 2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html. We may need to seek guidance on whether we can package this software as is.

===== 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:
[!]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
     [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "zlib License", "BSD
     2-Clause License". 91 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2157252-workflow/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.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: 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 604160 bytes in 84 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
     present.
     Note: Package has .a files: workflow-static.
[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).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     workflow-devel , workflow-static , workflow-docs
[?]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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
-------
Checking: workflow-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-devel-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-static-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-docs-0.10.4-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          workflow-debuginfo-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-debugsource-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-0.10.4-1.fc38.src.rpm
==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpofu0z4jw')]
checks: 31, packages: 7

workflow-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/workflow-docs/about-timeout.en.md
workflow-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/workflow-docs/tutorial-13-kafka_cli.en.md
workflow-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libworkflow.a
workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workflow-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h
workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211243
===================================================== 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.7 s ====================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: workflow-debuginfo-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw4_i9yql')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ====================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 6

workflow-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/workflow-docs/about-timeout.en.md
workflow-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/workflow-docs/tutorial-13-kafka_cli.en.md
workflow-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libworkflow.a
workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workflow-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h
workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211243
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/sogou/workflow/archive/refs/tags/v0.10.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0f5c06cc2d71218bcc29a45fd1a5ee7d9dd1275806fd8ef3ecff483dd9f31bc2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f5c06cc2d71218bcc29a45fd1a5ee7d9dd1275806fd8ef3ecff483dd9f31bc2


Requires
--------
workflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libssl.so.3()(64bit)
    libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

workflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libworkflow.so.0()(64bit)
    workflow(x86-64)

workflow-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    workflow(x86-64)

workflow-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

workflow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

workflow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
workflow:
    libworkflow.so.0()(64bit)
    workflow
    workflow(x86-64)

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

workflow-static:
    workflow-static
    workflow-static(x86-64)

workflow-docs:
    workflow-docs

workflow-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libworkflow.so.0.10.4-0.10.4-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    workflow-debuginfo
    workflow-debuginfo(x86-64)

workflow-debugsource:
    workflow-debugsource
    workflow-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2157252
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Java, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Benson Muite 2023-01-02 05:42:32 UTC
Thanks for your review. Checking upstream on licensing:
https://github.com/sogou/workflow/issues/1133
Asked on legal mailing list about updating fedora-review to check license compatibility.

One of the checks raised is:
 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Is this a false flag?

Comment 3 Troy Curtis 2023-01-03 01:20:58 UTC
Yeah it is interesting that fedora-review gave that output even though it is present. However, I was wrong anyway. Using the autogenerated requires is great when a package "uses" a library, but in this case it really should be that devel package should have the fully version dep on the base package. I was getting my wires crossed a bit there. I notice that my syntax highlighting is getting a bit confused due to the backtick used instead of an apostrophe in the description, maybe the fedora-review parser is getting similarly confused? I'm not sure.

I highly doubt fedora-review could be made to reliably test for compatibility, as the directionality is very important. For instance, if this was a GPL project, including some Apache licensed software is perfectly compatible. I think it would be very difficult to reliably detect the usage scenario in order to make a proper determination. I suppose flagging potentially conflicting licenses which might need a more careful review would be useful. However, the "here are all the detected licenses" feature seems to mostly do what we'd expect it to do.

Comment 4 Benson Muite 2023-01-03 03:56:12 UTC
Thanks. Rebuilt:

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05194640-workflow/workflow.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05194640-workflow/workflow-0.10.4-2.fc38.src.rpm

License detection seems reliable enough.  Compatibility warnings for commonly used licenses can be given, either by broad categorization of licenses or specific conflict identification. Reviewers can then check how the material is included.  If compatibility information is unknown or unclear, this can also be stated.  

Will see if can contribute an RB tree implementation upstream.

Comment 5 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-01-03 04:05:47 UTC
Created attachment 1935404 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5193447 to 5196659

Comment 6 Benson Muite 2023-01-04 10:10:48 UTC
Andrea - thanks for writing the rbtree implementation in the Linux kernel.  Might it be possible to dual license the two files rbtree.c and rbtree.h under something that can incorporated in Apache 2.0 licensed software?  It appears that the implementations are widely incorporated in other software. The excellent design and nice tutorial at https://lwn.net/Articles/184495/ probably explains its wide use.

Comment 7 Benson Muite 2023-01-05 11:56:16 UTC
The files rbtree.h and rbtree.c are under GPL2 or later, which includes GPL3 which is compatible with Apache 2.
Thus the entire work would be under GPL3.

Comment 8 Troy Curtis 2023-01-11 03:48:08 UTC
Yes that seems like what I would expect, the entire work would have to be under GPL. That means the included license text will need to be updated upstream to be GPL instead of the current Apache2 (actually I suppose technically both Apache 2 and GPL should be provided).

Comment 9 Benson Muite 2023-01-11 08:43:26 UTC
Upstream should also distribute GPL license text. Created an issue:
https://github.com/sogou/workflow/issues/1148
If upstream decides not to do this, probably if they expect to update the code, can add the license text to the package as per:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Note that Apache projects should not include GPL licensed code.  Workflow code is primarily under the Apache license but not an Apache project.

Comment 11 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-01-11 10:52:09 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5216267
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2157252-workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05216267-workflow/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

Comment 12 Troy Curtis 2023-01-13 03:22:01 UTC
Issues:
=======
- The "and" in the license field needs to be uppercase:
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/#d2-case-sensitivity

    ❯ license-validate 'Apache-2.0 and BSD-2-Clause and Zlib and GPL-2.0-or-later'
    No terminal defined for 'a' at line 1 col 12

    Apache-2.0 and BSD-2-Clause and Zlib and GPL-2.0-or
               ^

    Expecting: {'AND', 'OR'}

- Looks like the test is a separate CMake project under test/, the current %check run gives:

    + /usr/bin/ctest --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j16
    Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/workflow-0.10.5/redhat-linux-build
    No tests were found!!!
    /builddir/build/BUILD/workflow-0.10.5

- rpmlint is also throwing an error about the fsf address, maybe it should be patched to be
correct?

    workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h


===== 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.
[!]: 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",
     "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]", "zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 110 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2157252-workflow/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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 614400 bytes in 90 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
     workflow-devel , workflow-docs
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
     The GPL file is present in upstream, but not yet in a release.
[-]: 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.
[!]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
[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
-------
Checking: workflow-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-devel-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-docs-0.10.5-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          workflow-debuginfo-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-debugsource-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-0.10.5-1.fc38.src.rpm
==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgusoy00v')]
checks: 31, packages: 6

workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h
workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211940
===================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s ====================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: workflow-debuginfo-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmperqkr8g8')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ====================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 5

workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h
workflow-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 211940
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/sogou/workflow/archive/refs/tags/v0.10.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 96fe3c434429aa3d1d15c25df5b23a72284b07c6868e3746f587b3a8e2e16a68
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 96fe3c434429aa3d1d15c25df5b23a72284b07c6868e3746f587b3a8e2e16a68


Requires
--------
workflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libssl.so.3()(64bit)
    libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

workflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libworkflow.so.0()(64bit)
    workflow(x86-64)

workflow-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

workflow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

workflow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
workflow:
    libworkflow.so.0()(64bit)
    workflow
    workflow(x86-64)

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

workflow-docs:
    workflow-docs

workflow-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libworkflow.so.0.10.5-0.10.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    workflow-debuginfo
    workflow-debuginfo(x86-64)

workflow-debugsource:
    workflow-debugsource
    workflow-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2157252
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Java, Haskell, R, fonts, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 13 Benson Muite 2023-02-22 04:22:38 UTC
*** Bug 2172112 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 14 Benson Muite 2023-02-22 11:49:31 UTC
Updated. Cannot run tests as Gtest in Fedora rawhide requires C++14 or later. FSF address is due to license, and
should not be changed.  Same address is on FSF website.

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05556866-workflow/workflow.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05556866-workflow/workflow-0.10.5-3.fc39.src.rpm

Comment 15 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-22 11:59:41 UTC
Created attachment 1945710 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5216267 to 5556896

Comment 16 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-22 11:59:44 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5556896
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2157252-workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05556896-workflow/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 18 Benson Muite 2023-02-24 13:24:27 UTC
Thanks for the suggestion. autorelease and autochangelog are optional. Have found managing these manually a little more convenient as it decouples commit messages from log messages. Waiting for a new release from upstream so can incorporate tests.

Comment 19 Benson Muite 2023-02-25 16:58:23 UTC
Updated to latest release. Fedora-review gives error for address in FSF GPL2 license. However, this is the same address on the FSF website for GPL2.  There is also a warning for example source code included as documentation. Can remove this if needed.

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05566172-workflow/workflow.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05566172-workflow/workflow-0.10.6-1.fc39.src.rpm

Comment 20 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-25 17:19:36 UTC
Created attachment 1946361 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5556896 to 5566181

Comment 21 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-25 17:19:38 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5566181
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2157252-workflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05566181-workflow/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 22 Felix Wang 2023-02-26 06:22:14 UTC
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #19)
> Updated to latest release. Fedora-review gives error for address in FSF GPL2
> license. However, this is the same address on the FSF website for GPL2. 
> There is also a warning for example source code included as documentation.
> Can remove this if needed.
> 
> spec:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-
> rawhide-x86_64/05566172-workflow/workflow.spec
> srpm:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/workflow/fedora-
> rawhide-x86_64/05566172-workflow/workflow-0.10.6-1.fc39.src.rpm

The upstream maintainer explained that that code which caused incorrect-fsf-address in /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h was copied from the corresponding old code of GPL v2, so keep the address unchanged.

Comment 23 Felix Wang 2023-02-26 06:25:20 UTC
the related issue:
https://github.com/sogou/workflow/issues/1184

Comment 24 Benson Muite 2023-03-01 06:56:10 UTC
Expect only assigned reviewer can indicate a positive review.

Comment 25 Felix Wang 2023-03-01 12:24:32 UTC
Oh, very sorry for my mistake here.

Comment 26 Troy Curtis 2023-03-05 13:53:18 UTC
Everything looks good. I'm not sure why rpmlint says there's no documentation,
clearly there is, in the rpm, in the right place annotated as %doc. As discussed
in the comments, the address might be old, but it matches the license of the
original code thus shouldn't be changed.

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]: 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",
     "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]", "zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 110 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2157252-workflow/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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 614400 bytes in 90 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
     workflow-devel , workflow-docs
[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.
     https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/troycurtisjr/reviews/build/5595344/
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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
-------
Checking: workflow-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-devel-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-docs-0.10.6-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          workflow-debuginfo-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-debugsource-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          workflow-0.10.6-1.fc39.src.rpm
==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpf2w6i_5j')]
checks: 31, packages: 6

workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h
===================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s ====================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: workflow-debuginfo-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpd57dol8v')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

===================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ====================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 5

workflow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workflow-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/workflow/rbtree.h
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/sogou/workflow/archive/v0.10.6/workflow-0.10.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5701ef31518a7927e61b26cd6cc1d699cb43393bf1ffc77fa61e73e64d2dd28e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5701ef31518a7927e61b26cd6cc1d699cb43393bf1ffc77fa61e73e64d2dd28e


Requires
--------
workflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibc
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libssl.so.3()(64bit)
    libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

workflow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libworkflow.so.0()(64bit)
    workflow(x86-64)

workflow-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

workflow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

workflow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
workflow:
    libworkflow.so.0()(64bit)
    workflow
    workflow(x86-64)

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

workflow-docs:
    workflow-docs

workflow-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libworkflow.so.0.10.6-0.10.6-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    workflow-debuginfo
    workflow-debuginfo(x86-64)

workflow-debugsource:
    workflow-debugsource
    workflow-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2157252
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Ocaml, R, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 27 Benson Muite 2023-03-05 16:22:13 UTC
Thanks.

Comment 28 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-03-05 16:24:57 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workflow


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.