Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/sparrow.spec SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/sparrow-0.0.2-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: sparrow is an implementation of the Apache Arrow Columnar format in C++. It provides array structures with idiomatic APIs and convenient conversions from and to the C interface. Fedora Account System Username: sergesanspaille
Associated scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121599493
Upstream released a 0.0.3 package recently, I opened two bugs there since the updated build don't pass: https://github.com/man-group/sparrow/issues/175 https://github.com/man-group/sparrow/issues/176
Package updated with upstream recent changes, scratch build now passes without patches: scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122639208 Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/sparrow.spec SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/sparrow-0.0.4-1.fc42.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7953297 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2303391-sparrow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07953297-sparrow/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.
I've submitted https://github.com/man-group/sparrow/issues/198 upstream to fix the last warnings. I'll probably just backport the patch.
With the above patch applied: scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122912154 Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/sparrow.spec SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/sparrow-0.0.4-1.fc42.src.rpm This all looks good to me now?
[fedora-review-service-build] Checking, may take a day or two. Sorry for the delay.
Created attachment 2045604 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7953297 to 7989892
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7989892 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2303391-sparrow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07989892-sparrow/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.
Thanks @Benson, the review template looks good to me :-)
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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviews/sparrow/2303391-sparrow/srpm/review- sparrow/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1311 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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: 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 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: sparrow-devel-0.0.4-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm sparrow-0.0.4-1.fc42.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/tmpz1ow73yp')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ====== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.1 s ====== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/man-group/sparrow/archive/0.0.4/sparrow-0.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a9d7385f3a88bd3abbd7a79480100ec0ed2303407b88cf9b414bd73c93a10578 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9d7385f3a88bd3abbd7a79480100ec0ed2303407b88cf9b414bd73c93a10578 Requires -------- sparrow-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem Provides -------- sparrow-devel: cmake(sparrow) sparrow sparrow-devel sparrow-devel(x86-64) sparrow-static Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviews/sparrow/2303391-sparrow/srpm/sparrow.spec 2024-09-27 12:31:24.799296214 +0300 +++ /home/reviews/sparrow/2303391-sparrow/srpm/review-sparrow/srpm-unpacked/sparrow.spec 2024-09-27 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## 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 + Name: sparrow Version: 0.0.4 @@ -52,3 +62,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Sep 27 2024 John Doe <packager> - 0.0.4-1 +- 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 -n sparrow Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, Python, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) It may be helpful to users to have documentation packaged., ideally in a format that does not use javascript, for example man pages. This is not a blocking issue. b) Approved. Sorry for the delay.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sparrow
Package is now in repositories, closing review.