Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot/sciplot.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot/sciplot-0.3.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: The goal of the sciplot project is to enable a C++ programmer to conveniently plot beautiful graphs as easy as in other high-level programming languages. sciplot is a header-only library that needs a C++17-capable compiler, but has no external dependencies for compiling. The only external runtime dependencies are gnuplot-palettes for providing color palettes and a gnuplot executable. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107993719
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6558817 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2245723-sciplot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06558817-sciplot/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.
Take this. + package name is OK + license is specified correctly and is acceptable for Fedora (MIT) + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sciplot-devel". > (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sciplot-examples-debuginfo". > (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sciplot-examples". > (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sciplot-debugsource". > There are no files to process nor additional arguments. > Nothing to do, aborting. I have no clue with the following issue. I tested the package build with the SPEC file on my machine, it seems good. > # Tests aren't wired up properly to cmake so run them manually > # https://github.com/sciplot/sciplot/issues/105 > ./%{_vpath_builddir}/tests/sciplot-cpptests As for %check section, I open the PR on the upstream, which should deal with this. https://github.com/sciplot/sciplot/pull/115 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 [ ]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %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 11483 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: 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: [!]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sciplot- devel , sciplot-examples [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: sciplot-devel-0.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm sciplot-examples-0.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm sciplot-debugsource-0.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm sciplot-0.3.1-1.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/tmpwrby7jdm')] checks: 31, packages: 4 sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-3d-helix sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-bessel-functions sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-boxes sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-boxes-ticklabels sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-figures sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-figures-layout sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-filled-curves sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-logarithmic-axes sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-missing-data sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-multiplot sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-multiplot-mixed sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-plot-get sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-readme sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-sincos-functions sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sciplot-example-sine-functions sciplot-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sciplot-examples-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.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/tmposgdp3ap')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sciplot-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sciplot-examples-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sciplot-examples". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "sciplot-debugsource". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 4 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sciplot/sciplot/archive/v0.3.1/sciplot-0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d5f8fa7783920c0db4f54d8d9cea8a5e50be99153e81dcaccf91532994ebbad0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5f8fa7783920c0db4f54d8d9cea8a5e50be99153e81dcaccf91532994ebbad0 Requires -------- sciplot-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sciplot-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/gnuplot 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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sciplot-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sciplot-devel: sciplot-devel sciplot-devel(x86-64) sciplot-static sciplot-examples: sciplot-examples sciplot-examples(x86-64) sciplot-debugsource: sciplot-debugsource sciplot-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name sciplot --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Haskell, R, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Would you like to take my package review of boxed-cpp for swap? It is a header-only package that should be simple to review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot/sciplot.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/sciplot/sciplot-0.3.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Changelog: - backport upstream PR to enable cmake testing > I have no clue with the following issue. I tested the package build with the SPEC file on my machine, it seems good. Yeah, I don't know what this means either, and things look fine on my end as well. > As for %check section, I open the PR on the upstream, which should deal with this. https://github.com/sciplot/sciplot/pull/115 I've included this, thanks! > Would you like to take my package review of boxed-cpp for swap? It is a header-only package that should be simple to review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909 Done
It looks good to me. Approved. And thanks for taking your time to look into my package review.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sciplot
FEDORA-2023-71fbdcbe4a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-71fbdcbe4a
FEDORA-2023-71fbdcbe4a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9
FEDORA-2023-80b87fbaea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-80b87fbaea
FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-80b87fbaea 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-2023-80b87fbaea \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-80b87fbaea See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-80b87fbaea has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.