Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/plog.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/plog-1.1.10-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Plog is a C++ logging library that is designed to be as simple, small and flexible as possible. It is created as an alternative to existing large libraries and provides some unique features as CSV log format and wide string support. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
This doesn't install: Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides plog(x86-64) = 1.1.10-1.fc40 needed by plog-devel-1.1.10-1.fc40.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
Taking this review
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [!]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License [generated file]". 121 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2238232-plog/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. [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 82572 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]: 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]: 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). [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]: 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: 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: plog-devel-1.1.10-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm plog-1.1.10-1.fc40.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/tmpb51vixbz')] checks: 31, packages: 2 plog-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 plog-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/SergiusTheBest/plog/archive/1.1.10/plog-1.1.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55a090fc2b46ab44d0dde562a91fe5fc15445a3caedfaedda89fe3925da4705a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55a090fc2b46ab44d0dde562a91fe5fc15445a3caedfaedda89fe3925da4705a Requires -------- plog-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) Provides -------- plog-devel: cmake(plog) plog-devel plog-devel(x86-64) plog-static plog-static(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2238232 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Python, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The only oddity here is [!]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed which might be due to one of the samples, but doesn't matter either way. APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plog
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4) > The only oddity here is > > [!]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed > > which might be due to one of the samples, but doesn't matter either way. > APPROVED I don't see any gnulib sources in the codebase, I don't know what this warning is about...
FEDORA-2023-543c5612db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-543c5612db
FEDORA-2023-9024d60a5e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9024d60a5e
FEDORA-2023-5123efa972 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5123efa972
FEDORA-2023-543c5612db has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-543c5612db` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-543c5612db See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-9024d60a5e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-9024d60a5e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9024d60a5e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-5123efa972 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-5123efa972 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5123efa972 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-5123efa972 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-9024d60a5e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-543c5612db has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.