Spec URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/valijson.spec SRPM URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/valijson-1.0.3-6.fc42.src.rpm Description: Valijson provides a simple validation API that allows you to load JSON Schemas, and validate documents loaded by one of several supported parser libraries. The goal of this project is to support validation of all constraints available in JSON Schema v7, while being competitive with the performance of a hand-written schema validator. Fedora Account System Username: gui1ty Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124248402
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8096638 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2315886-valijson/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08096638-valijson/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.
This mostly looks quite good, but there are a few things that need to be looked at before the package can be approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The License field does not appear to be correct. I confirmed that contents of JSON-Schema-Test-Suite-23.2.0.tar.gz are MIT, and "JSON License" appears spurious. However, the test suite is not incorporated in the binary RPMs and does not affect their licenses. While valijson-1.0.3/README.md mentions the MIT license, triggering licensecheck, it refers to a web-based demo not included in the source distribution. Instead, “Valijson is licensed under the Simplified BSD License.” The text of valijson-1.0.3/LICENSE appears to match BSD-2-Clause. There were two files correctly detected by licensecheck as BSL-1.0. valijson-1.0.3/examples/valijson_nlohmann_bundled.hpp valijson-1.0.3/include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp The first is a bundled copy of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/json. You’re already not packaging the examples; I think you should make this explicit in %prep: # Remove the examples to prove we are not distributing them, or any bundled # libraries therein: rm -rv examples/ The second is derived from (but not an exact copy of) an unknown version of Boost. It does ship with the library, and needs to be accounted for. Something like this should work: # The entire source is BSD-2-Clause, except: # BSL-1.0: # - examples/valijson_nlohmann_bundled.hpp (removed in %%prep) # - include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp # Additionally, Source1 is MIT, but is used only for testing and does not # contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs. License: BSD-2-Clause AND BSL-1.0 Then, to be strictly correct: # include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp is derived/forked from an unknown # release of the Boost.Optional library Provides: bundled(boost) - It’s good and correct that you added Requires to valijson-devel for things that appear in the API headers. However, based on grepping the headers, I think that Requires: cmake(gtest) is spurious and can be omitted. - Please replace pushd %{__cmake_builddir} with pushd %{_vpath_builddir} See the comments on %__cmake_builddir in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros. - Since this is a header-only library, you must add Provides: valijson-static = %{version}-%{release} to the devel subpackage. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries ===== Suggestions/Comments (no change required for approval) ===== - It would indeed be good to try to investigate the failing tests. I can’t reproduce them in an upstream checkout: $ gh repo clone tristanpenman/valijson $ cd valijson $ git submodule update --init --recursive $ cmake -S. -Bbuild -Dvalijson_BUILD_TESTS:BOOL=ON $ cmake --build build/ -j16 --verbose $ cd build $ ./test_suite - Personally, I like writing directories in files lists with trailing slashes so that they only match directories and not files, and so that it is clear to the reader that a recursively-included directory is intended. For example, instead of %{_includedir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name} I would write %{_includedir}/%{name}/ %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/ However, there is no guideline prescribing this, and it is ultimately a matter of opinion. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* JSON License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 649 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/licensecheck.txt License should be BSD-2-Clause AND BSL-1.0; see Issues. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Since include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp is derived/forked from Boost, we should add virtual Provides; see Issues. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See Issues; Requires: cmake(gtest) appears to be spurious in the devel package. [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 15474 bytes in 2 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: 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]: 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. Tests mostly pass, but there are some odd unexplained failures. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124823856 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests mostly pass, but there are some odd unexplained failures. [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) OK: differences are due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [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: valijson-devel-1.0.3-6.fc42.x86_64.rpm valijson-1.0.3-6.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/tmpjszg_wts')] checks: 32, packages: 2 valijson.src: E: spelling-error ('validator', '%description -l en_US validator -> lavatorial') valijson.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: thirdparty_cleanup.patch valijson-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ======================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 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 valijson-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite/archive/23.2.0/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite-23.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8484173f82a2d992ca4fd36a45ad6174badf857053cdc991d7639406f1ac9957 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8484173f82a2d992ca4fd36a45ad6174badf857053cdc991d7639406f1ac9957 https://github.com/tristanpenman/valijson/archive/v1.0.3/valijson-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0fbd3cd2312b441c6373ee116e9a162c400f9e3cd79f6b32665cdd22fa11ac3f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fbd3cd2312b441c6373ee116e9a162c400f9e3cd79f6b32665cdd22fa11ac3f Requires -------- valijson-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel cmake(gtest) cmake(jsoncpp) cmake(nlohmann_json) cmake(pocojson) cmake(qt5core) cmake(rapidjson) cmake(yaml-cpp) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) picojson-devel Provides -------- valijson-devel: cmake(valijson) valijson-devel valijson-devel(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/srpm/valijson.spec 2024-10-01 14:59:53.539965330 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/srpm-unpacked/valijson.spec 2024-09-30 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -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 = 6; + 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 + # header-only library %global debug_package %{nil} @@ -114,2 +124,23 @@ %{_includedir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name} + +%changelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Oct 01 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-6 +- Exclude i686 + +* Tue Oct 01 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-5 +- Fix building and running tests + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-4 +- Remove json11 + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-3 +- Prepare for building and running tests + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-2 +- Add dependencies for devel package + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2315886 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, R, fonts, Python, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review and the feedback provided. Much appreciated. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #2) > - The License field does not appear to be correct. <snip> > # The entire source is BSD-2-Clause, except: > # BSL-1.0: > # - examples/valijson_nlohmann_bundled.hpp (removed in %%prep) > # - include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp > # Additionally, Source1 is MIT, but is used only for testing and does not > # contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs. > License: BSD-2-Clause AND BSL-1.0 Not sure what I did there. I might have been looking at the test suite repo when determining the license. Either way, I corrected it now. > Then, to be strictly correct: > > # include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp is derived/forked from an unknown > # release of the Boost.Optional library > Provides: bundled(boost) This feels very strict seeing this is concerning a single header file. Is it even true? The package is not providing any binaries, nor libraries, etc.? I'd rather not add the Provides. I'd be happy to add a comment regarding that file, though. > - It’s good and correct that you added Requires to valijson-devel for things > that appear in the API headers. However, based on grepping the headers, I > think that > > Requires: cmake(gtest) > > is spurious and can be omitted. Done. It was a left over from copying the test BRs. > - Please replace > > pushd %{__cmake_builddir} > > with > > pushd %{_vpath_builddir} Changed. Thanks! > - Since this is a header-only library, you must add > > Provides: valijson-static = %{version}-%{release} Done. I remembered the debug_package part, but forgot about the static library part. > ===== Suggestions/Comments (no change required for approval) ===== > > - It would indeed be good to try to investigate the failing tests. I can’t > reproduce them in an upstream checkout: > > $ gh repo clone tristanpenman/valijson > $ cd valijson > $ git submodule update --init --recursive > $ cmake -S. -Bbuild -Dvalijson_BUILD_TESTS:BOOL=ON > $ cmake --build build/ -j16 --verbose > $ cd build > $ ./test_suite I agree. Though, my C++ skills are not very advanced. My gut tells me this has to do with some version difference of some library. Upstream is using git submodules after all. > - Personally, I like writing directories in files lists with trailing slashes > so that they only match directories and not files, and so that it is clear > to > the reader that a recursively-included directory is intended. For example, > instead of > > %{_includedir}/%{name} > %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name} > > I would write > > %{_includedir}/%{name}/ > %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/ > > However, there is no guideline prescribing this, and it is ultimately a > matter of opinion. I think it's a good habit of trying to avoid mismatches where possible. I changed it and will try to remember and make it a habit.
Spec URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/valijson.spec SRPM URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/valijson-1.0.3-8.fc42.src.rpm Changes have been implemented as per above comments. This release also "fixes" the tests. It turned out the release of the test suite was too far ahead of what upstream is using. I'm now using the exact same version as upstream.
(In reply to Sandro from comment #3) > > Then, to be strictly correct: > > > > # include/valijson/compat/optional.hpp is derived/forked from an unknown > > # release of the Boost.Optional library > > Provides: bundled(boost) > > This feels very strict seeing this is concerning a single header file. Is it > even true? The package is not providing any binaries, nor libraries, etc.? > I'd rather not add the Provides. I'd be happy to add a comment regarding > that file, though. I tend to be stricter than most on indicating bundling. When considering whether it’s worth considering forked or “inspired by” code as bundling, I tend to ask myself, “If a serious bug were discovered in the original code, how likely is it that this code would also be affected?” But there is room for nuance and subjective judgement here. In general, a single copied header file can certainly constitute bundling. I would tend not to consider it bundling if the header is mostly function signatures, but Boost.Optional is a header-only (sub)library within boost. The contents of this header file are nontrivial, and are compiled into anything that uses the header-only library in a C++ standard mode earlier than C++17. The only differences between this and including a massive amalgamated single-file header-only library like nlohmann_json.hpp are (1) scale, and (2) the degree of copying from the original implementation. On second look, this second point – the degree of copying from the original implementation – does appear persuasive in this case. The header comment says “The idea and interface is based on Boost.Optional library,” and it seems fair to say that it appears more “inspired by” than “copied from” Boost.Optional. I think this is a good argument that it’s not necessary to indicate bundling in this case. In any case, it looks like you’ve accounted for the license in this file, which is the really necessary part. (In reply to Sandro from comment #4) > Spec URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/valijson.spec > SRPM URL: > https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/valijson-1.0.3-8.fc42.src.rpm > > Changes have been implemented as per above comments. This release also > "fixes" the tests. It turned out the release of the test suite was too far > ahead of what upstream is using. I'm now using the exact same version as > upstream. Thanks! I’m glad you were able to figure out the issue with the tests. I’ll revisit this review as soon as I have a little time.
Sorry it took me a while to get back to this, but everything looks good now. All comments and suggestions in the original review were addressed. The package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Boost Software License 1.0". 277 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/20241116/2315886-valijson/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 15474 bytes in 2 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: 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]: 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. (tests pass) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125950625 [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) Ok: differences are only due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [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: valijson-devel-1.0.3-8.fc42.x86_64.rpm valijson-1.0.3-8.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpwed0x6m5')] checks: 32, packages: 2 valijson.src: E: spelling-error ('validator', '%description -l en_US validator -> lavatorial') valijson.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: thirdparty_cleanup.patch valijson-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 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 valijson-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite/archive/8c3d56df71754e6b1fd4c5e48e93e4047840bbe5/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite-8c3d56df71754e6b1fd4c5e48e93e4047840bbe5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f41b26def5e3a95a883e020145a24125426dd8ddb5a04580ff6950f9c2ff29bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f41b26def5e3a95a883e020145a24125426dd8ddb5a04580ff6950f9c2ff29bd https://github.com/tristanpenman/valijson/archive/v1.0.3/valijson-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0fbd3cd2312b441c6373ee116e9a162c400f9e3cd79f6b32665cdd22fa11ac3f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fbd3cd2312b441c6373ee116e9a162c400f9e3cd79f6b32665cdd22fa11ac3f Requires -------- valijson-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel cmake(jsoncpp) cmake(nlohmann_json) cmake(pocojson) cmake(qt5core) cmake(rapidjson) cmake(yaml-cpp) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) picojson-devel Provides -------- valijson-devel: cmake(valijson) valijson-devel valijson-devel(x86-64) valijson-static Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/20241116/2315886-valijson/srpm/valijson.spec 2024-11-16 08:03:55.372132731 -0500 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2315886-valijson/20241116/2315886-valijson/srpm-unpacked/valijson.spec 2024-10-14 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -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 = 8; + 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 + # header-only library %global debug_package %{nil} @@ -125,2 +135,29 @@ %{_includedir}/%{name}/ %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/ + +%changelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Oct 15 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-8 +- Fix failing tests + +* Tue Oct 15 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-7 +- Implement changes following review + +* Tue Oct 01 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-6 +- Exclude i686 + +* Tue Oct 01 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-5 +- Fix building and running tests + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-4 +- Remove json11 + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-3 +- Prepare for building and running tests + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-2 +- Add dependencies for devel package + +* Sun Sep 22 2024 Sandro <devel> - 1.0.3-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2315886 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you. I'll import this.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/valijson