spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/rang-3.2-1/rang.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/rang-3.2-1/rang-3.2-1.fc38.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100732178 Description: rang is a header-only, modern C++ library for handling colors and other effects in terminals. FAS username: suve Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5890409 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2193370-rang/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05890409-rang/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.
> %define summ Minimal, header-only, Modern C++ library for terminal goodies > Summary: %{summ} You do not need use %define here, just put the summary words in the Summary field, and you can use %{summary} later. > %if 0%{?with_tests} > BuildRequires: cmake > BuildRequires: gcc-c++ > BuildRequires: make> > BuildRequires: cmake(doctest) > %endif The dependencies of gcc, cmake and make should not be included in %if conditionals here.
> You do not need use %define here, just put the summary words in the Summary field, and you can use %{summary} later. Hmm. Weird. I swear I saw some cases where a sub-package did the "Summary: %{summary}" thing and ended up with the macro not expanding. But I tested it out and it seems to work fine. > The dependencies of gcc, cmake and make should not be included in %if conditionals here. Right. Initially I wanted to install stuff manually and only use cmake for tests. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/rang-3.2-2/rang.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/rang-3.2-2/rang-3.2-2.fc38.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101197450
Created attachment 1964847 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5890409 to 5922285
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5922285 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2193370-rang/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05922285-rang/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.
Sorry for letting you waiting for long. The package seemed good to me, so it is approved. --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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* The Unlicense". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/rang/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rang-devel-3.2-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm rang-3.2-2.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/tmp7tpxulqx')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/agauniyal/rang/archive/v3.2/rang-v3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b42d9c33a6529a6c283a4f4c73c26326561ccc67fbb3e6a3225edd688b39973 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b42d9c33a6529a6c283a4f4c73c26326561ccc67fbb3e6a3225edd688b39973 Requires -------- rang-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) Provides -------- rang-devel: cmake(rang) pkgconfig(rang) rang-devel rang-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name rang --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Would you mind taking a package review for swap? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2210624
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rang
The package built successfully in Rawhide.