Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/magic_enum/magic_enum.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/magic_enum/magic_enum-0.9.5-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Magic Enum is a header-only C++17 library that provides static reflection for enums, working with any enum type without any macro or boilerplate code. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110839306
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6815980 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255846-magic_enum/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06815980-magic_enum/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.
Taking the review. + package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora: MIT + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct + no scriptlets needed or present + rpmlint finds no big issue > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /var/lib/copr- > rpmbuild/results/magic_enum/upstream- > unpacked/Source0/magic_enum-0.9.5/test/3rdparty, /var/lib/copr- > rpmbuild/results/magic_enum/upstream- > unpacked/Source0/magic_enum-0.9.5/include There are source code files of catch2 library in test/3rdparty, which are used in compiling tests that will not be in binary RPM. So I think it will not be marked as bundled. I have one question that needs to deal with. The upstream also provides the CMake build system file, which can use %cmake_install can install the package files to corresponding install location. I suggest use cmake, since the library is header-only, it will make no difference. 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/magic_enum/upstream- unpacked/Source0/magic_enum-0.9.5/test/3rdparty, /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/magic_enum/upstream- unpacked/Source0/magic_enum-0.9.5/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 52240 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: [!]: 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. [ ]: 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 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: magic_enum-devel-0.9.5-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm magic_enum-0.9.5-1.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/tmpk7d3c86j')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "magic_enum-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/Neargye/magic_enum/archive/v0.9.5/magic_enum-0.9.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 44ad80db5a72f5047e01d90e18315751d9ac90c0ab42cbea7a6f9ec66a4cd679 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 44ad80db5a72f5047e01d90e18315751d9ac90c0ab42cbea7a6f9ec66a4cd679 Requires -------- magic_enum-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- magic_enum-devel: magic_enum-devel magic_enum-devel(x86-64) magic_enum-static(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name magic_enum --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> There are source code files of catch2 library in test/3rdparty, which are used in compiling tests that will > not be in binary RPM. So I think it will not be marked as bundled. Good catch, I'll replace this with the system one as it's easy enough > I have one question that needs to deal with. The upstream also provides the CMake build system file, which can use %cmake_install can install the package files to corresponding install location. I suggest use cmake, since the library is header-only, it will make no difference. afaict the only meaningful feature that meson provides and cmake does not is setting the MAGIC_ENUM_ENABLE_HASH define if one builds with -Dhash=true. Given that it's a header-only library, this is irrelevant -- I agree, using cmake seems to be the better option here.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/magic_enum/magic_enum.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/magic_enum/magic_enum-0.9.5-1.fc40.src.rpm Changelog: - use cmake instead of meson - replace bundled catch2 with the system one
Looks Good. Approved. By the way, Would you mind sparing some time on my review request of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813 ?
Thanks! Sure thing, I'll get that done today.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/magic_enum
FEDORA-2024-3647b77da6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3647b77da6
FEDORA-2024-3647b77da6 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-eea9c0a353 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-eea9c0a353
FEDORA-2024-cc20a6feaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cc20a6feaf
FEDORA-2024-eea9c0a353 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-2024-eea9c0a353 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-eea9c0a353 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-cc20a6feaf has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-cc20a6feaf` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cc20a6feaf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-eea9c0a353 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-cc20a6feaf has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.