Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/iwyu.spec SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/iwyu-0.19-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: C/C++ source files #include analyzer based on clang Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly Re-review of retired package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/iwyu
Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/iwyu See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License". 563 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2179648-iwyu/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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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 81920 bytes in 7 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 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6205440 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: iwyu-0.19-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm iwyu-debuginfo-0.19-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm iwyu-debugsource-0.19-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm iwyu-0.19-1.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/tmp938w1l71')] checks: 31, packages: 4 iwyu.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/include-what-you-use iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fix_includes.py iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwyu_tool.py ================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s ================================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: iwyu-debuginfo-0.19-1.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/tmprlhu78no')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 3 iwyu.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/include-what-you-use iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fix_includes.py iwyu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iwyu_tool.py 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use/archive/0.19/include-what-you-use-0.19.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 169b7af2f66196e729f694aed539ec964d874eb7959614b5828238fe49747980 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 169b7af2f66196e729f694aed539ec964d874eb7959614b5828238fe49747980 Requires -------- iwyu (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 glibc libLLVM-15.so()(64bit) libLLVM-15.so(LLVM_15)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclang-cpp.so.15()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) iwyu-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): iwyu-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- iwyu: include-what-you-use include-what-you-use(x86-64) iwyu iwyu(x86-64) iwyu-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) iwyu-debuginfo iwyu-debuginfo(x86-64) iwyu-debugsource: iwyu-debugsource iwyu-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2179648 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, R, fonts, Python, Perl, PHP, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
FEDORA-2023-feb9f6e252 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-feb9f6e252
FEDORA-2023-feb9f6e252 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
*** Bug 2175012 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***