Spec URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hyprlang/hyprlang.spec SRPM URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hyprlang/hyprlang-0.2.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: The official implementation library for the hypr config language. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111358860
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6867331 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2256995-hyprlang/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06867331-hyprlang/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.
> Patch: https://github.com/hyprwm/hyprlang/compare/v0.2.1...main.patch This would vary based on when it is fetched. If there are specific commits that you need, include them individually by hash (with a comment as to why they are necessary), or use a snapshot version and tarball etc. > %{_datadir}/pkgconfig/hyprlang.pc This belongs in %{_libdir}/pkgconfig.
Spec URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hyprlang/hyprlang.spec SRPM URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hyprlang/hyprlang-0.2.1^1.git25da080-1.fc39.src.rpm Fixed, those commits since the release contain cmake fixes only (fix installation, pkgconfig, +soname) and upstream doesn't seem to have any plans for release.
Created attachment 2008078 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6867331 to 6878232
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6878232 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2256995-hyprlang/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06878232-hyprlang/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 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: 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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9699 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 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: hyprlang-0.2.1^1.git25da080-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hyprlang-devel-0.2.1^1.git25da080-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hyprlang-debuginfo-0.2.1^1.git25da080-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hyprlang-debugsource-0.2.1^1.git25da080-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm hyprlang-0.2.1^1.git25da080-1.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/tmp917u_c_7')] checks: 31, packages: 5 hyprlang-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hyprlang-debuginfo-0.2.1^1.git25da080-1.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/tmp49_scpfw')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 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 "hyprlang-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hyprlang-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hyprlang". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hyprlang-debuginfo". 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: 4 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hyprwm/hyprlang/archive/25da0804b00fffeee17463afd146711b4a05e77b/hyprlang-25da080.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f18a076d2ed5f9949aa85adcbb31f2c951df435538e697cceb720e1a22913826 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f18a076d2ed5f9949aa85adcbb31f2c951df435538e697cceb720e1a22913826 Requires -------- hyprlang (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) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) hyprlang-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config hyprlang(x86-64) libhyprlang.so.0()(64bit) hyprlang-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hyprlang-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- hyprlang: hyprlang hyprlang(x86-64) libhyprlang.so.0()(64bit) hyprlang-devel: hyprlang-devel hyprlang-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(hyprlang) hyprlang-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) hyprlang-debuginfo hyprlang-debuginfo(x86-64) libhyprlang.so.0.2.1-0.2.1^1.git25da080-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) hyprlang-debugsource: hyprlang-debugsource hyprlang-debugsource(x86-64) PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thank you for the review, Yaakov
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hyprlang
FEDORA-2024-48d7851810 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-48d7851810
FEDORA-2024-48d7851810 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.