Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nanoflann.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nanoflann-1.5.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: A C++11 header-only library for Nearest Neighbor (NN) search with KD-trees Fedora Account System Username: topazus
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6813961 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255796-nanoflann/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06813961-nanoflann/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.
use system gtest dependency Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nanoflann.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nanoflann-1.5.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2005813 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6813961 to 6814000
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6814000 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255796-nanoflann/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06814000-nanoflann/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.
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nanoflann.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nanoflann-1.5.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2005814 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6814000 to 6814005
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6814005 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255796-nanoflann/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06814005-nanoflann/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 name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct + no scriptlets needed or present + rpmlint finds no big issue Approved. 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. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/nanoflann/upstream- unpacked/Source0/nanoflann-1.5.3/tests/gtest-1.8.0/include, /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/nanoflann/upstream- unpacked/Source0/nanoflann-1.5.3/include [ ]: 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 24533 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nanoflann-devel-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm nanoflann-1.5.3-1.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/tmpqc6ejwc3')] checks: 31, packages: 2 nanoflann.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: https://github.com/jlblancoc/nanoflann/pull/227.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "nanoflann-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jlblancoc/nanoflann/archive/v1.5.3/nanoflann-1.5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 850119b57226c12d03dfc73075771da4feae994e35e82d352e5f7b295a41fec2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 850119b57226c12d03dfc73075771da4feae994e35e82d352e5f7b295a41fec2 Requires -------- nanoflann-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem Provides -------- nanoflann-devel: cmake(nanoflann) nanoflann-devel nanoflann-devel(x86-64) nanoflann-static(x86-64) pkgconfig(nanoflann) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name nanoflann --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nanoflann
FEDORA-2023-cf9e4f38d4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cf9e4f38d4
FEDORA-2023-cf9e4f38d4 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.