Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/wildcardtl.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/wildcardtl-0^20210903git94b8d4e-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Wildcard template library. Fedora Account System Username: music This header-only C++ library is a dependency for https://github.com/BenHanson/gram_grep. Koji scratch builds: F40: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105992861 F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105992862 F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105992863 F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105992864
Related: bug 2238029
Upstream has accepted my request to start tagging releases, and we are discussing alignment of the release tag with the version configured in CMakeLists.txt. https://github.com/BenHanson/gram_grep/issues/17#issuecomment-1949916154 Expect an updated submission soon.
New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20240218/wildcardtl.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20240218/wildcardtl-2024.02.17-1.fc39.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7031291 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2238219-wildcardtl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07031291-wildcardtl/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.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/gram_grep/build/7031483/
Fails to build on Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128218904 Perhaps try latest commit? [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8553395 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2238219-wildcardtl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08553395-wildcardtl/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
/builddir/build/BUILD/wildcardtl-2024.02.17-build/wildcardtl-2024.02.17/include/wildcardtl/parser/tokeniser/../../char_traits.hpp:23:15: error: ‘uint32_t’ does not name a type [-Wtemplate-body] 23 | const uint32_t max_ = 0x10ffff; | ^~~~~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/wildcardtl-2024.02.17-build/wildcardtl-2024.02.17/include/wildcardtl/parser/tokeniser/../../char_traits.hpp:1:1: note: ‘uint32_t’ is defined in header ‘<cstdint>’; this is probably fixable by adding ‘#include <cstdint>’ +++ |+#include <cstdint> 1 | // char_traits.hpp /builddir/build/BUILD/wildcardtl-2024.02.17-build/wildcardtl-2024.02.17/include/wildcardtl/parser/tokeniser/../../char_traits.hpp:26:13: error: ‘max_’ was not declared in this scope; did you mean ‘max_val’? [-Wtemplate-body] 26 | max_ : (max_ & 0xffff); | ^~~~ | max_val That’s a GCC 15 regression. I’ll do the following: - Send a PR upstream to add the missing #include - Apply it as a patch - Update bug 2264773 to the latest upstream release of gram_grep - Check whether or not I need to update wildcardtl to a post-release snapshot for compatibility with the latest gram_grep
Upstream just tagged a new release that addresses this issue. I’m also preparing to update the gram_grep submission in bug 2264773. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250126/wildcardtl.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250126/wildcardtl-1.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2073914 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8553395 to 8571281
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8571281 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2238219-wildcardtl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08571281-wildcardtl/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /FedoraPackaging/reviews/wildcardtl/2238219-wildcardtl/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 852 bytes in 1 files. [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). [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: wildcardtl-devel-1.0.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm wildcardtl-1.0.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp7ch1xr9o')] checks: 32, packages: 2 wildcardtl.spec: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BenHanson/wildcardtl/archive/1.0.0/wildcardtl-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5f463f591dc7e517cfb441dd790a1aeb255bee0b4ee6030855889ee5b8ab233b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5f463f591dc7e517cfb441dd790a1aeb255bee0b4ee6030855889ee5b8ab233b Requires -------- wildcardtl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wildcardtl-devel: wildcardtl-devel wildcardtl-static Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2238219 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, PHP, Python, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128505948 b) Approved
Thank you for the review! https://release-monitoring.org/project/371494/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wildcardtl
FEDORA-2025-3c607fc9e6 (wildcardtl-1.0.0-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3c607fc9e6
FEDORA-2025-3c607fc9e6 (wildcardtl-1.0.0-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a (lexertl17-1.1.3-1.fc41, parsertl17-1.0.0-1.fc41, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a
FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa (lexertl17-1.1.3-1.fc40, parsertl17-1.0.0-1.fc40, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492 (lexertl17-1.1.3-1.el10_0 and parsertl17-1.0.0-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-9eccf9cfee (lexertl17-1.1.3-1.el9 and parsertl17-1.0.0-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-9eccf9cfee
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-9eccf9cfee has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-9eccf9cfee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-9eccf9cfee (lexertl17-1.1.3-1.el9, parsertl17-1.0.0-1.el9, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492 (gram_grep-0.9.0-4.el10_0, lexertl17-1.1.3-1.el10_0, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa (gram_grep-0.9.0-4.fc40, lexertl17-1.1.3-1.fc40, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a (gram_grep-0.9.0-4.fc41, lexertl17-1.1.3-1.fc41, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.