Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/gram_grep.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/gram_grep-2024.02.17-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Search text using a grammar, lexer, or straight regex. Chain searches for greater refinement. Fedora Account System Username: music https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/gram_grep/build/7031981/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7031984 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2264773-gram_grep/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07031984-gram_grep/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.
Please expect an updated submission in the next day or so. Upstream has released a couple of new versions, and I’m writing a man page.
Updated to the latest upstream release and added a man page: New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250128/gram_grep.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250128/gram_grep-0.9.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8582366 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2264773-gram_grep/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08582366-gram_grep/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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2074324 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8582366 to 8584002
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8584002 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2264773-gram_grep/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08584002-gram_grep/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++: [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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /FedoraPackaging/reviews/gram-grep/2264773-gram_grep/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 52407 bytes in 49 files. [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: 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: [-]: 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. [ ]: %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 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: gram_grep-0.9.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm gram_grep-0.9.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpaftiyxpx')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gram_grep-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpgp74qbo2')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BenHanson/gram_grep/archive/0.9.0/gram_grep-0.9.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cbab1a879562785df308b6b52cae5379c4436ceb96296d55774770d042fc3a95 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cbab1a879562785df308b6b52cae5379c4436ceb96296d55774770d042fc3a95 Requires -------- gram_grep (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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gram_grep: gram_grep gram_grep(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2264773 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Python, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Running gram_grep --help is a reasonable smoke test. Some of the examples could also be used: http://benhanson.net/gram_grep.html b) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128659042 c) Approved, though consider adding a smoke test. d) Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334976 would be appreciated if time allows.
Thank you for the review! Upstream is going to be excited to finally have this in Fedora. > a) Running > gram_grep --help > is a reasonable smoke test. Some of the examples could also be used: > http://benhanson.net/gram_grep.html That’s a good idea. I’ll add some straightforward examples from that page as smoke tests in a %check section. > d) Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334976 would be appreciated if time allows. I have taken the review, although it may be a few days before I have time to complete it.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gram_grep
FEDORA-2025-1b2d01a8d4 (gram_grep-0.9.0-3.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1b2d01a8d4
FEDORA-2025-1b2d01a8d4 (gram_grep-0.9.0-3.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
A few post-import changes: Add some messy but useful “smoke tests” based on documented examples https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gram_grep/c/b8ae7b94ac754ff33f4ff05c98e53337781bf56c?branch=rawhide Switch from plain makefiles to CMake https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gram_grep/c/9343bb01d7d52b6bdb859b1cfab4cc76853107cb?branch=rawhide (Upstream added CMake support after my original submission.) Do not build for i686 (leaf package) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gram_grep/c/c1beb7074fa9bb34a9095237ed47389a952eb816?branch=rawhide (I usually try not to introduce new leaves on i686. I just overlooked it this time.)
FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a (gram_grep-0.9.0-4.fc41, lexertl17-1.1.3-1.fc41, and 2 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a
FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa (gram_grep-0.9.0-4.fc40, lexertl17-1.1.3-1.fc40, and 2 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492 (lexertl17-1.1.3-1.el10_0, parsertl17-1.0.0-1.el10_0, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa 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-2025-3dcedd4faa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-bf7436e492 (gram_grep-0.9.0-4.el10_0, lexertl17-1.1.3-1.el10_0, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-3dcedd4faa (gram_grep-0.9.0-4.fc40, lexertl17-1.1.3-1.fc40, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-4312b0397a (gram_grep-0.9.0-4.fc41, lexertl17-1.1.3-1.fc41, and 2 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.