Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: This project was started to fulfill the need of a reliable implementations of such standards in the AppImage project. It is totally standalone and only depends on the standard c++ libraries (stdlib) Fedora Account System Username: farchord
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6557870 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/srpm-builds/06557870/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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6559037 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06559037-xdg-utils-cxx/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.
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Added tests/shared libraries build
Created attachment 1995242 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6559037 to 6559155
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6559155 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06559155-xdg-utils-cxx/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.
Waiting on more info about what's necessary here.
I was just triaging some bugs, this one was assigned but the fedora review flag was not properly set, thus I fixed that. Here are some preliminary notes: - Source URL is not in the correct format. Should be something alike : https://gitlab.com/OWNER/PROJECT/-/archive/%{gittag}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags - You should have both main package with the versioned so and a -devel subpackage with the headers and unversioned so. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages However, no versioned so are provided, there's an upstream bug about that already: https://github.com/azubieta/xdg-utils-cxx/issues/18 I think this might be fixed already in master branch, but not in a tag, so you might need to package a snapshot until upstream makes a proper release. But upstream seems inactive...
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc40.src.rpm Refreshed the package, used latest git commit as source.
Just noticed this has been hanging for quite a while, adding needinfo
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
%_includedir and %{_libdir}/cmake belong into devel subpackage, not into base library package. I would recommend using just %{_libdir}/libXdgUtilsBaseDir.so.1* in base package, to simplify later updates with minor versions. But otherwise, it seems ready.
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.src.rpm Pushed some devel files over to the devel subpackage
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc41.src.rpm Updated the static versioning for the binaries in %files (To be more forgiving with future updates)
Created attachment 2053294 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6559155 to 8169357
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8169357 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08169357-xdg-utils-cxx/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 Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/2245564-xdg-utils- cxx/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 1244 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xdg- utils-cxx-devel [ ]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 5.9 starting (python version = 3.12.7, NVR = mock-5.9-1.fc40), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True --resultdir=/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/results install '/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/results/xdg-utils-cxx-devel-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm' '/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/results/xdg-utils-cxx-debuginfo-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm' '/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/results/xdg-utils-cxx-debugsource-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm' '/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/results/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm' Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 5.9 INFO: Mock Version: 5.9 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/xdg-utils-cxx-devel-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm /builddir/xdg-utils-cxx-debuginfo-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm /builddir/xdg-utils-cxx-debugsource-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm /builddir/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 17dd957aadf942439d82322476da1193 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.pdguu3c4:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 42 install '/builddir/xdg-utils-cxx-devel-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm' '/builddir/xdg-utils-cxx-debuginfo-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm' '/builddir/xdg-utils-cxx-debugsource-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm' '/builddir/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm' --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm xdg-utils-cxx-devel-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm xdg-utils-cxx-debuginfo-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm xdg-utils-cxx-debugsource-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmptz23hyz3')] checks: 32, packages: 5 xdg-utils-cxx.src: E: spelling-error ('stdlib', '%description -l en_US stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid') xdg-utils-cxx.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('stdlib', '%description -l en_US stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid') xdg-utils-cxx-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('subpackage', "Summary(en_US) subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's") xdg-utils-cxx-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('stdlib', '%description -l en_US stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid') xdg-utils-cxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ========= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 39 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 8.5 s ========= Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/azubieta/xdg-utils-cxx/archive/80c611c39b2fd8fffb850ba803254c081cfcb9a8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c4430f492ef3e4777540f05274d69e9fafb5f8f0f923bbadf0ebfa3e95bc841 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c4430f492ef3e4777540f05274d69e9fafb5f8f0f923bbadf0ebfa3e95bc841 Requires -------- xdg-utils-cxx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xdg-utils-cxx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libXdgUtilsBaseDir.so.1.0.1()(64bit) libXdgUtilsDesktopEntry.so.1.0.1()(64bit) xdg-utils-cxx.fc42 xdg-utils-cxx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xdg-utils-cxx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- xdg-utils-cxx: libXdgUtilsBaseDir.so.1.0.1()(64bit) libXdgUtilsDesktopEntry.so.1.0.1()(64bit) xdg-utils-cxx xdg-utils-cxx(x86-64) xdg-utils-cxx-devel: cmake(XdgUtils) cmake(xdgutils) xdg-utils-cxx-devel xdg-utils-cxx-devel(x86-64) xdg-utils-cxx-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libXdgUtilsBaseDir.so.1.0.1-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libXdgUtilsDesktopEntry.so.1.0.1-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) xdg-utils-cxx-debuginfo xdg-utils-cxx-debuginfo(x86-64) xdg-utils-cxx-debugsource: xdg-utils-cxx-debugsource xdg-utils-cxx-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2245564 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please change Requires: %{name}%{?dist} = %{version} to Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} This will resolve the installation error b) With above change, some tests fail on i686 and aarch64: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125222073
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0.1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc41.src.rpm Updated devel recommend
(In reply to Steve Cossette from comment #18) > Spec URL: > https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx.spec > SRPM URL: > https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/xdg-utils-cxx/xdg-utils-cxx-1.0. > 1^20220319.114600.80c611c-1.fc41.src.rpm > > Updated devel recommend Sorry I meant to type "Updated devel require". As far as the build issue on i686 and aarch64, do you have a recommendation? I know how to exclude tests on python, but not on ctest. That project is not really active anymore so I doubt submitting an issue would be a good idea.
Created attachment 2053831 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8169357 to 8179312
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8179312 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2245564-xdg-utils-cxx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08179312-xdg-utils-cxx/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.
It only seems to be used in libappimage on Arch: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/xdg-utils-cxx/ libappimage is in turn consumed by a number of KDE libraries. Will check on the bugs, but it will take a few days.
Bumping review.
One can exclude the failing tests by changing: %ctest to %ctest -E "cstringCasting|removeEntry" See https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128217132 File a bug in the main repository as well as for kioextras and kfilemetadata. If the code is not going to be maintained, it would be good to remove the dependency as the above are core KDE libraries.
Bringing this package in was less for those kde packages and more for libappimage. See: https://pagure.io/fedora-kde/SIG/issue/313