Spec URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/functionalplus.spec SRPM URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/functionalplus-0.2.20.p0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Functional Programming Library for C++. Write concise and readable C++ code. Fedora Account System Username: solopasha
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107356753
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6516498 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243214-functionalplus/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06516498-functionalplus/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.
Looks good to me, just one thing: I see the library has an extensive test suite. Would it be possible to execute it under %check? 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. [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 [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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: 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]: 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). [?]: 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 [?]: 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: functionalplus-devel-0.2.20.p0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm functionalplus-0.2.20.p0-1.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/tmpqlgxtaxq')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Dobiasd/FunctionalPlus/archive/v0.2.20-p0/functionalplus-0.2.20.p0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a8e56bd7976b7d5a6a31001f36bc199c2997f1144994fa0b48a1a5b8497abbc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a8e56bd7976b7d5a6a31001f36bc199c2997f1144994fa0b48a1a5b8497abbc Requires -------- functionalplus-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem Provides -------- functionalplus-devel: cmake(FunctionalPlus) cmake(functionalplus) functionalplus-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2243214 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, R, Java, fonts, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Another two things, since this is a header-only package: The base package must not be marked as NOARCH according to the guidelines. (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_use_noarch_only_in_subpackages) Once the tests are added, they will then run on all architectures. Additionally, the devel subpackage must have a provide for "FunctionalPlus-static". (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries)
Thanks, fixed! Spec URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/functionalplus.spec SRPM URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/functionalplus-0.2.20.p0-1.fc40.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107409919
Created attachment 1993640 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6516498 to 6520196
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6520196 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243214-functionalplus/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06520196-functionalplus/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.
Looks good now, I will approve when I get sponsored (which should happen within a couple of days).
Thank you for the review! As far as I see, you're in the packager group https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/pzacik, so you should be able to approve reviews.
Yep, got sponsored yesterday, approved!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/functionalplus
FEDORA-2023-01a89007b1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-01a89007b1
FEDORA-2023-01a89007b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.