Spec URL: https://akien.fedorapeople.org/srpms/wslay.spec SRPM URL: https://akien.fedorapeople.org/srpms/wslay-1.1.1-1.mga9.src.rpm Description: Lightweight WebSocket library in C Fedora Account System Username: akien wslay is a lightweight WebSocket library, used notably by Godot Engine which is packaged in Fedora as `godot` (and soon `godot3` too following bug 2176837). The godot package in Fedora currently builds wslay from source, but it can be built easily as a system library, like I did for the Mageia package. So I'm proposing to include that package in Fedora too.
Taking this review.
Created attachment 1949405 [details] mgarepo output with full author name logs I pulled the log from the Mageia SVN for a fuller RPM log matching Fedora changelog conventions. Can you update this package to use that?
Thanks, that looks much better. I updated the Spec and SRPM linked in the OP.
The build fails due to missing "BuildRequires: gcc" and missing "BuildRequires: make".
Indeed. I've added gcc-c++ (seems like Fedora's CMake macro requires g++ even though the library is C only) and make. I also had to dehardcode "build" in the "%check" section: ``` %check %{_vpath_builddir}/tests/wslay_tests ``` It's now building fine using mock's rawhide config on Mageia. (Updated spec and SRPM at the same location.)
(In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #5) > Indeed. I've added gcc-c++ (seems like Fedora's CMake macro requires g++ > even though the library is C only) and make. > This is actually because the CMakeLists doesn't declare it as a C-only project. By default CMake assumes C++ projects unless you say otherwise. Feel free to fix this if you want. > I also had to dehardcode "build" in the "%check" section: > ``` > %check > %{_vpath_builddir}/tests/wslay_tests > ``` > > It's now building fine using mock's rawhide config on Mageia. (Updated spec > and SRPM at the same location.) Excellent!
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", "MIT License". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2176889-wslay/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. [-]: 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 2 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: [-]: 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 wslay- devel [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. [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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define major 1 [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: wslay-1.1.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm wslay-devel-1.1.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm wslay-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm wslay-debugsource-1.1.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm wslay-1.1.1-1.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/tmpza6epww_')] checks: 31, packages: 5 wslay.x86_64: W: no-documentation =========================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =========================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wslay-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.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/tmp7dj0fs1r')] 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: 4 wslay.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tatsuhiro-t/wslay/archive/release-1.1.1/wslay-release-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b9f4b9df09adaa6e07ec309b68ab376c0db2cfd916613023b52a47adfda224a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b9f4b9df09adaa6e07ec309b68ab376c0db2cfd916613023b52a47adfda224a Requires -------- wslay (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wslay-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libwslay.so.1()(64bit) wslay wslay-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wslay-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wslay: libwslay.so.1()(64bit) wslay wslay(x86-64) wslay-devel: cmake(wslay) pkgconfig(libwslay) wslay-devel wslay-devel(x86-64) wslay-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libwslay.so.1.1.1-1.1.1-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) wslay-debuginfo wslay-debuginfo(x86-64) wslay-debugsource: wslay-debugsource wslay-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2176889 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Haskell, fonts, Java, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Thanks, both fixed!
Looks great now! PACKAGE APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wslay
FEDORA-2023-c2cf0d8528 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c2cf0d8528
FEDORA-2023-1dddf8b462 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1dddf8b462
FEDORA-2023-c2cf0d8528 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c2cf0d8528` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c2cf0d8528 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6d3bbb9b6d has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-6d3bbb9b6d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6d3bbb9b6d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-1dddf8b462 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1dddf8b462 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-1dddf8b462 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-6d3bbb9b6d has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-c2cf0d8528 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.