Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec?ref_type=heads SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/5915065383/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm?inline=false Description: This library implements some basic data structures and algorithms such as command line arguments handling, base26 and base64 routines, bits manipulation, debugging and error reporting routines, hash tables, sets, lists, stacks, skip lists, string pool routines, memory management routines, parsing routines, process management routines, source code management routines and timer support. Fedora Account System Username: carlosrodrifernandez Notes for Context: This package is a build and runtime requirement for dictd. It is being separated into its own package instead of being pulled during the dictd package build, and statically compiled as it was before. This package depends on mk-configure to build, which is also a new package being reviewed in #2257985
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6886527 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/srpm-builds/06886527/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.
The dictd PR where this library is being used as a package dependency: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dictd/pull-request/3#request_diff
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec?ref_type=heads SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/5915065383/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm?inline=false
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/carlosrodrifernandez/libmaa/builds/
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/6087909160/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6982754 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06982754-libmaa/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.
The build failed becuase `mk-configure` package is not ready yet in RAWHIDE. I'll retry later once it is available.
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/6088001239/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2014851 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6982754 to 6984027
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6984027 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06984027-libmaa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - /sbin/ldconfig called in libmaa Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets 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.
Fix unnecessary ldconfig call Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/6090393293/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2014927 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6984027 to 6984118
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6984118 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06984118-libmaa/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.
Cleanup Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/6098515086/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2015219 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6984118 to 6986834
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6986834 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06986834-libmaa/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.
Fix missing isa in the devel subpkg Requires specification Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/6098590875/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2015220 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6986834 to 6986851
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6986851 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06986851-libmaa/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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2257986-libmaa/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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: 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 7382 bytes in 2 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmaa-devel-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmaa-debuginfo-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmaa-debugsource-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmtu66o0c')] checks: 32, packages: 5 libmaa.src: W: strange-permission libmaa.spec 666 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmaa-debuginfo-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpa13leg1b')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 27 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cheusov/libmaa/archive/refs/tags/1.4.7/libmaa-1.4.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50ae93a84aa413e31562db3e660338abf4806626d605f975a10cccbb3cb75116 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50ae93a84aa413e31562db3e660338abf4806626d605f975a10cccbb3cb75116 Requires -------- libmaa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmaa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmaa(x86-64) libmaa.so.4()(64bit) libmaa-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmaa-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libmaa: libmaa libmaa(x86-64) libmaa.so.4()(64bit) libmaa-devel: libmaa-devel libmaa-devel(x86-64) libmaa-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmaa-debuginfo libmaa-debuginfo(x86-64) libmaa.so.4.0-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libmaa-debugsource: libmaa-debugsource libmaa-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257986 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Ocaml, Java, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Can some of the tests be run in a check section? b) The first part of the soname needs to be included in the installed file listing: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
Benson, thank you for the review! Fix of soname handling, and added the tests in %check Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/6128553414/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2015855 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6986851 to 7000971
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7000971 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07000971-libmaa/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.
Hi Benson, any new update or feedback? Thank you!
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2257986-libmaa/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: 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: 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 7382 bytes in 2 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. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmaa-devel-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmaa-debuginfo-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmaa-debugsource-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgpkari28')] checks: 32, packages: 5 libmaa.src: W: strange-permission libmaa.spec 666 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 32 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmaa-debuginfo-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_78xi2hx')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 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: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 29 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cheusov/libmaa/archive/refs/tags/1.4.7/libmaa-1.4.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50ae93a84aa413e31562db3e660338abf4806626d605f975a10cccbb3cb75116 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50ae93a84aa413e31562db3e660338abf4806626d605f975a10cccbb3cb75116 Requires -------- libmaa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmaa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmaa(x86-64) libmaa.so.4()(64bit) libmaa-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmaa-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libmaa: libmaa libmaa(x86-64) libmaa.so.4()(64bit) libmaa-devel: libmaa-devel libmaa-devel(x86-64) libmaa-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmaa-debuginfo libmaa-debuginfo(x86-64) libmaa.so.4.0-1.4.7-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libmaa-debugsource: libmaa-debugsource libmaa-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257986 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, R, Java, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comment: a) To run the tests you probably need: %mkcmake test not %mkcmake tests b) The %check section typically is after the %install section c) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113487704
Thank you Benson for the feedback. I have been working on it but ran into some bugs that will take me some time to address.
Fix test in %check, place %check after the %install It builds in all architectures. Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/raw/main/libmaa.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/carlosrodfern/rpms-libmaa/-/jobs/6215236806/artifacts/raw/libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2017799 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7000971 to 7039431
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7039431 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07039431-libmaa/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.
Benson, Any new feedback or update? Thank you.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7092631 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257986-libmaa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07092631-libmaa/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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2257986-libmaa/srpm-unpacked/review- libmaa/licensecheck.txt [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 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: 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 7382 bytes in 2 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. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm libmaa-devel-1.4.7-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm libmaa-debuginfo-1.4.7-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm libmaa-debugsource-1.4.7-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm libmaa-1.4.7-1.fc41.src.rpm ====================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpaupyfi6j')] checks: 32, packages: 5 libmaa.src: W: strange-permission libmaa.spec 666 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s = Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmaa-debuginfo-1.4.7-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm ====================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpn4s0lr1j')] checks: 32, packages: 1 = 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 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: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 27 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cheusov/libmaa/archive/1.4.7/libmaa-1.4.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50ae93a84aa413e31562db3e660338abf4806626d605f975a10cccbb3cb75116 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50ae93a84aa413e31562db3e660338abf4806626d605f975a10cccbb3cb75116 Requires -------- libmaa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmaa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmaa(aarch-64) libmaa.so.4()(64bit) libmaa-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmaa-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libmaa: libmaa libmaa(aarch-64) libmaa.so.4()(64bit) libmaa-devel: libmaa-devel libmaa-devel(aarch-64) libmaa-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmaa-debuginfo libmaa-debuginfo(aarch-64) libmaa.so.4.0-1.4.7-1.fc41.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libmaa-debugsource: libmaa-debugsource libmaa-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libmaa Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Java, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags in the spec file please replace Source0: https://github.com/cheusov/libmaa/archive/refs/tags/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz by Source0: https://github.com/cheusov/libmaa/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz b) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114268150 c) Approved, above change can be done on import. d) Thanks for adding mk-configure to fedora
Thank you Benson!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmaa