Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/parsertl17.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/parsertl17-0^20240215gitaf5c3d7-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: The Modular Parser Generator. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a header-only package. It is a new C++17 version of the existing https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/parsertl14. Currently, the two devel packages will conflict under https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_compat_package_conflicts (and the corresponding Conflicts will be added to parsertl14 when parsertl17 is imported). Once parsertl17 is imported, parsertl14 will be retired in Rawhide and, if there is a Branched release that has not yet reached Final Freeze, in Branched as well.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7027758 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2264588-parsertl17/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07027758-parsertl17/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.
Upstream has accepted my request to start tagging releases, and we are discussing alignment of the release tag with the version configured in CMakeLists.txt. https://github.com/BenHanson/gram_grep/issues/17#issuecomment-1949916154 Expect an updated submission soon.
New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20240218/parsertl17.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20240218/parsertl17-2024.02.17-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 2017468 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7027758 to 7031290
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7031290 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2264588-parsertl17/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07031290-parsertl17/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.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/gram_grep/build/7031487/
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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2264588-parsertl17/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /home/fedora/2264588-parsertl17/upstream- unpacked/Source0/parsertl17-2024.02.17/include [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: 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 2703 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. [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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: parsertl17-devel-2024.02.17-1.fc41.noarch.rpm parsertl17-2024.02.17-1.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/tmpn4r1r70e')] checks: 32, packages: 2 parsertl17.spec: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BenHanson/parsertl17/archive/2024.02.17/parsertl17-2024.02.17.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cdb98ca95d338a135ae931e787c4e26860e519cd9f78c11c198cf18fbe2eb269 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cdb98ca95d338a135ae931e787c4e26860e519cd9f78c11c198cf18fbe2eb269 Requires -------- parsertl17-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lexertl17-devel Provides -------- parsertl17-devel: parsertl17-devel parsertl17-static Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2264588 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114620368 b) Upstream seems to just build the tests. Maybe some of them can also be run? c) Approved.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #7) > Comments: > a) Builds on all architectures: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114620368 > b) Upstream seems to just build the tests. Maybe some of them can also be > run? > c) Approved. Thank you for the review! The upstream tests for this particular package are strictly “include tests.” There is nothing that actually runs: the test is just whether we can include each header in the header-only library, e.g. [1], compile them, and link them together into a do-nothing executable with an empty main()[2]. So it’s really just a “does it compile and link” smoke-test, and that’s it. If upstream does add some kind of executable functional/unit tests in the future, I’ll be sure to run them. [1] https://github.com/BenHanson/parsertl17/blob/main/tests/include_test/ebnf_tables.cpp [2] https://github.com/BenHanson/parsertl17/blob/main/tests/include_test/include_test.cpp
https://release-monitoring.org/project/371496/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/parsertl17
FEDORA-2024-3f1d5946fd (parsertl17-2024.02.17-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3f1d5946fd
FEDORA-2024-3f1d5946fd (parsertl17-2024.02.17-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc40, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc40, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1
FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc39, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc39, and 2 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a
FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016 (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc38, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-2.fc38, and 2 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121 (lexertl14-0.1.0-25.20240301git3097246.el9 and lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-2.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121
FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 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-f8a0cba016 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a 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-f4d0b7d25a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121 (lexertl14-0.1.0-25.20240301git3097246.el9, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-2.el9, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc39, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc39, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016 (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc38, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-2.fc38, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc40, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc40, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-6faa90792c (parsertl17-2024.02.17-3.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-6faa90792c
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-6faa90792c (parsertl17-2024.02.17-3.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.