Spec URL: https://ibotty.fedorapeople.org/loguru.spec SRPM URL: https://ibotty.fedorapeople.org/loguru-2.1.0-1.20230406git.fc41.src.rpm Description: A lightweight C++ logging library Fedora Account System Username: ibotty Note: This is using a not released version, because it did not have any release in a very long time. I did not bump the version number, but should I? This is an upcoming dependency of j4-dmenu-desktop.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7111037 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268124-loguru/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07111037-loguru/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.
I don't know how to bump the version with `autochangelog` (which I'd really like to use), so I re-uploaded fixed versions with the same URLs as above. The successful koji build is at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114555352. The problem on some archs is an upstream `-Werror` that I patched out now.
[fedora-review-service-build]
I don't know what the last comment does. This is not waiting for something from me, I hope. If so, I would be glad if someone can give me some pointers.
It is meant to trigger a build of the rpm to check things are ok. [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2022381 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7111037 to 7179819
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7179819 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268124-loguru/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07179819-loguru/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.
> loguru-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libloguru.so.2 libloguru.so.2.1.0 I copied most of the spec file from catch's spec: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/catch/blob/rawhide/f/catch.spec This spec file does include the symbolic links to the real `.so` in the `-devel` package. What's the right way to do that? If i were to correct it somehow, how can I still use `%autochangelog` and bump the version. Is that possible?
spec: https://ibotty.fedorapeople.org/loguru.spec srpm: https://ibotty.fedorapeople.org/loguru-2.1.0-1.20230406git.fc41.src.rpm
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 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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* The Unlicense". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2268124-loguru/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib64/pkgconfig [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. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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 238972 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: 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 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in loguru- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define git_revision 4adaa185883e3c04da25913579c451d3c32cfac1 [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: loguru-2.1.0-1.20230406git.fc41.aarch64.rpm loguru-devel-2.1.0-1.20230406git.fc41.aarch64.rpm loguru-debuginfo-2.1.0-1.20230406git.fc41.aarch64.rpm loguru-debugsource-2.1.0-1.20230406git.fc41.aarch64.rpm loguru-2.1.0-1.20230406git.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/tmpi9yzyznc')] checks: 32, packages: 5 loguru.aarch64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libloguru.so.2.1.0 loguru.aarch64: W: no-documentation loguru-devel.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libloguru.so.2 libloguru.so.2.1.0 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 29 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: loguru-debuginfo-2.1.0-1.20230406git.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/tmp6_5fduxd')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 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 loguru.aarch64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libloguru.so.2.1.0 loguru.aarch64: W: no-documentation loguru-devel.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libloguru.so.2 libloguru.so.2.1.0 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 26 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/emilk/loguru/archive/4adaa185883e3c04da25913579c451d3c32cfac1/loguru-4adaa185883e3c04da25913579c451d3c32cfac1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1424f3ce814fa413e5fbdf2949994d455e3914560f958d2931ba869349a686a8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1424f3ce814fa413e5fbdf2949994d455e3914560f958d2931ba869349a686a8 Requires -------- loguru (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) 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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) loguru-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(aarch-64) libloguru.so.2()(64bit) loguru loguru-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): loguru-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- loguru: libloguru.so.2()(64bit) loguru loguru(aarch-64) loguru-devel: cmake(loguru) loguru-devel loguru-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(loguru) loguru-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libloguru.so.2.1.0-2.1.0-1.20230406git.fc41.aarch64.debug()(64bit) loguru-debuginfo loguru-debuginfo(aarch-64) loguru-debugsource: loguru-debugsource loguru-debugsource(aarch-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2268124-loguru/srpm/loguru.spec 2024-03-26 07:06:13.705994901 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2268124-loguru/srpm-unpacked/loguru.spec 2024-03-06 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %define git_revision 4adaa185883e3c04da25913579c451d3c32cfac1 Name: loguru @@ -58,3 +68,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Mar 06 2024 John Doe <packager> - 2.1.0-1.20230406git +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2268124 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Perhaps change: Source0: https://github.com/emilk/%{name}/archive/%{git_revision}/%{name}-%{git_revision}.tar.gz to Source0: %{url}/%{name}/archive/%{git_revision}/%{name}-%{git_revision}.tar.gz b) %{_libdir}/libloguru.so.2 should be in the main package, not the devel package. c) documentation should also be in the main package, not the devel package d) Tests do not work with CMake at present. May need to use the provided Bash scripts, or fix the cmake configuration. e) Change Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} since the main package is architecture dependent. f) Use %global instead of %define g) License should probably be Unlicense OR LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain h) Directory ownership is a fedora-review bug
Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269966 would be appreciated if time allows.
*** Bug 2276336 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I just submitted the same package for review in bug 2276336. I also submitted the public-domain text for review so that the license can be (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR Unlicense): https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/508 I didn’t know there was already an open review. Your submission has priority, but please feel free to take anything you want from my spec file (https://music.fedorapeople.org/loguru.spec), or to use my entire spec file verbatim. I am also happy to co-maintain the resulting package.
Tobias, are you planning to keep working on this package?
I honestly don't care. I am usually streched thin on time, but this package won't need much maintenance. I am totally fine with co-maintainership as well as you maintaining it. I have not diffed the spec, is there anything you find cleaner in yours? If so, I would be glad if you can tell me, so I can learn.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #10) > Package Review > [...] I totally missed that comment. Sorry. Thank you for the review! I'll look into it next week after my holiday.
(In reply to Tobias Florek from comment #15) > I honestly don't care. I am usually streched thin on time, but this package > won't need much maintenance. I am totally fine with co-maintainership as > well as you maintaining it. > > I have not diffed the spec, is there anything you find cleaner in yours? If > so, I would be glad if you can tell me, so I can learn. I package the same commit, but version it as a post-release snapshot of 2.2.0, which is more accurate since the 2.2.0 release “happened” even though there is a git tag. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots regarding snapshot versioning. I express the license as LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR Unlicense and file https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/508, since the Unlicense was added as alternative to the original public-domain dedication rather than a replacement for it. I exclude i686 from the beginning under https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval, so I don’t need fix-build-on-odd-archs.patch. I run the tests (which your package attempts, but it reports "No tests were found!!!") I install the documentation in a noarch -doc subpackage. I attempt to support lnav users by packaging the lnav format support file in an -lnav subpackage, and use rich dependencies to make sure it is installed when lnav is (Requires: (loguru-lnav = %{version}-%{release} if lnav)). There are a few other small differences. I think all of Benson Muite’s feedback is addressed in my version.
Given that, it might make sense to use your spec I suppose. Should I just close this bug as duplicate of yours and you reopen your bug?
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #17) > I exclude i686 from the beginning under > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval, so I don’t > need fix-build-on-odd-archs.patch. Sorry, this is incorrect. I *should* have your patch, or equivalently add -Wno-error=type-limits via CXXFLAGS; my spec file doesn’t work anywhere but x86_64. /builddir/build/BUILD/loguru-4adaa185883e3c04da25913579c451d3c32cfac1/loguru.cpp: In function ‘void loguru::escape(std::string&, const std::string&)’: /builddir/build/BUILD/loguru-4adaa185883e3c04da25913579c451d3c32cfac1/loguru.cpp:571:36: error: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits] 571 | else if (0 <= c && c < 0x20) { // ASCI control character: | ~~^~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/loguru-4adaa185883e3c04da25913579c451d3c32cfac1/loguru.cpp: In function ‘loguru::Text loguru::ec_to_text(char)’: /builddir/build/BUILD/loguru-4adaa185883e3c04da25913579c451d3c32cfac1/loguru.cpp:1845:28: error: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits] 1845 | else if (0 <= c && c < 0x20) { | ~~^~~~ (The underlying issue is that char may be signed or unsigned, and on platforms where it defaults to signed, the comparison is useless/tautological. However, it’s not harmful or incorrect.)
(In reply to Tobias Florek from comment #18) > Given that, it might make sense to use your spec I suppose. Should I just > close this bug as duplicate of yours and you reopen your bug? It is up to you. Would you like to be the primary maintainer? I don’t care either way as long as we end up with a workable package.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #20) > (In reply to Tobias Florek from comment #18) > > Given that, it might make sense to use your spec I suppose. Should I just > > close this bug as duplicate of yours and you reopen your bug? > > It is up to you. Would you like to be the primary maintainer? I don’t care > either way as long as we end up with a workable package. Any thoughts on a path forward for this package? Thanks.