Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/clap.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/clap-1.2.2-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: CLAP stands for CLever Audio Plugin. It is an interface that provides a stable ABI to define a standard for Digital Audio Workstations and audio plugins (synthesizers, audio effects, ...) to work together. Fedora Account System Username: topazus
Why there is no a review.txt file here like at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310716#c2 ? I could try to review the package, because it looks simple, but lack of this template makes it less appealing.
* Including the licensing terms becomes a MUST, since a file "LICENSE" is found in the source package: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ * rpmlint indicates that some of the doc files could be included: clap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation * The generic summary and description for the -devel package don't work as nicely as with other development packages. There is no main package "clap", but %name expands to "clap", and therefore the resulting summary and description look odd: Summary : Development files for clap Description : This package contains development files for clap. You've entered a much better %description for the main package and the source package. Why not use that one for the -devel package? Even more so, since the project seems to be called CLAP in doc files and on the web pages.
* Currently not much is going on in the header files with regard to code creation and there are no shared libs, nevertheless there are extra requirements for tracking header-only "libs": https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/clap.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/clap-1.2.2-1.fc39.src.rpm Thanks for seeing this package. > * Including the licensing terms becomes a MUST, since a file "LICENSE" is found in the source package: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ Fixed. Added the following line: %license LICENSE > * rpmlint indicates that some of the doc files could be included: > clap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Added the following line: %doc README.md > * The generic summary and description for the -devel package don't work as nicely as with other development packages. There is no main package "clap", but %name expands to "clap", and therefore the resulting summary and description look odd: > Summary : Development files for clap > Description : > This package contains development files for clap. > You've entered a much better %description for the main package and the source package. Why not use that one for the -devel package? Even more so, since the project seems to be called CLAP in doc files and on the web pages. Fixed. > * Currently not much is going on in the header files with regard to code creation and there are no shared libs, nevertheless there are extra requirements for tracking header-only "libs": https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries Fixed. Added the following line: Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8453237 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316476-clap/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08453237-clap/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 will take a look on this one
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: Latest version is packaged. Latest version 1.2.6 (Should not make a big difference, but should be updated before build) ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "MIT License". 84 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/clap/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. [x]: 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 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 8097 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Latest version 1.2.6 (Should not make a big difference, but should be updated before build) [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: clap-devel-1.2.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm clap-1.2.2-1.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/tmp1npez73c')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "clap-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Package is Accepted
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clap
Thanks.
FEDORA-2025-7e56ba6436 (clap-1.2.6-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7e56ba6436
FEDORA-2025-7e56ba6436 (clap-1.2.6-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.