Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/pdqsort/pdqsort.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/pdqsort/pdqsort-0-1.20210314gitb1ef26a.fc40.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Pattern-defeating quicksort (pdqsort) is a novel sorting algorithm that combines the fast average case of randomized quicksort with the fast worst case of heapsort, while achieving linear time on inputs with certain patterns. pdqsort is an extension and improvement of David Musser's introsort. This package is part of an effort to add the SoPlex and SCIP solvers to Fedora. The entire collection of packages is available in a COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/SCIP/.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6729877 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253357-pdqsort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06729877-pdqsort/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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: "zlib License", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2253357-pdqsort/licensecheck.txt [-]: %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: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6300 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. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pdqsort-devel-0-1.20210314gitb1ef26a.fc40.noarch.rpm pdqsort-0-1.20210314gitb1ef26a.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpi9vdihxz')] 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: 2.5.0 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 checks: 32, packages: 1 pdqsort-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('quicksort', 'Summary(en_US) quicksort -> quick sort, quick-sort, quickstep') pdqsort-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('quicksort', '%description -l en_US quicksort -> quick sort, quick-sort, quickstep') pdqsort-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('heapsort', '%description -l en_US heapsort -> heap sort, heap-sort, seaport') pdqsort-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('introsort', '%description -l en_US introsort -> intro sort, intro-sort, introspect') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/orlp/pdqsort/archive/b1ef26a55cdb60d236a5cb199c4234c704f46726/pdqsort-b1ef26a55cdb60d236a5cb199c4234c704f46726.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0995891a6d7fabc9883bc238ececa1185702491e5b66b6f52ff0d2a396507b8c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1df2463f94ebd926f402e7bcd92bf4a16f7a35732080a607fe4716888f1edbb5 However, diff -r shows no differences Requires -------- pdqsort-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pdqsort-devel: pdqsort-devel pdqsort-static Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2253357 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, R, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comment: a) May consider running benchmark program as a test of functionality. Perhaps modifying https://github.com/orlp/pdqsort/blob/master/bench/bench.cpp#L127 to use only small sizes. Can be done on import. b) Please apply spelling correction suggestions in the description. c) Approved.
Thank you for the review! (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) > Comment: > a) May consider running benchmark program as a test of functionality. > Perhaps modifying > https://github.com/orlp/pdqsort/blob/master/bench/bench.cpp#L127 > to use only small sizes. Can be done on import. Okay, that's a good idea. > b) Please apply spelling correction suggestions in the description. It looks like every one of those suggestions is wrong. :-) The algorithms really are named quicksort and heapsort, and the previous project really is named introsort. > c) Approved. Thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pdqsort
This package has been built in Rawhide. It was necessary to restrict %check to x86_64, since the benchmark uses the rdtsc CPU instruction for timekeeping.