Spec URL: https://github.com/rjarry/libecoli/blob/f40/libecoli.spec SRPM URL: https://f.jarry.cc/libecoli-0.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: rjarry Description: libecoli stands for Extensible COmmand LIne library. This library provides helpers to build interactive command line interfaces. What can it be used for? * Complex interactive command line interfaces in C (e.g.: a router CLI). * Application arguments parsing, natively supporting bash completion. * Generic parsers. Main Features * Dynamic completion. * Contextual help. * Integrated with libedit, but can use any readline-like library. * Modular: the cli behavior is defined through an assembly of basic nodes. * Extensible: the user can write its own nodes to provide specific features. * C API. This is a dependency of grout which I would like to package into Fedora as well: https://github.com/DPDK/grout
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8175761 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321778-libecoli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08175761-libecoli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Documentation size is 1567982 bytes in 165 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://github.com/rjarry/libecoli/blob/f40/libecoli.spec SRPM URL: https://f.jarry.cc/libecoli-0.2.0-2.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2053691 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8175761 to 8176308
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8176308 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321778-libecoli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08176308-libecoli/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.
Initial comments: a) First part of soname should be in %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.* so use %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.0.2* b) Doc package should also have the license file as it does not depend on the main package c) Devel package should have Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} to ensure it has main library and the license file when installed d) Should LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain also be added: BSD 3-Clause License and/or Public domain ----------------------------------------- libecoli-0.2.0-build/libecoli-0.2.0/include/ecoli_murmurhash.h
The spec file should also b downloadable using curl/wget so link as: spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rjarry/libecoli/refs/heads/f40/libecoli.spec srpm: https://f.jarry.cc/libecoli-0.2.0-2.fc40.src.rpm
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5) > Initial comments: > a) First part of soname should be in > %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.* > so use > %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.0.2* Actually, SONAME is .0 only: $ objdump -p build/libecoli.so.0.2.0 | grep SONAME SONAME libecoli.so.0 Is it OK if I change to: %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.0* > b) Doc package should also have the license file as it does not depend on > the main package > c) Devel package should have > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > to ensure it has main library and the license file when installed > d) Should LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain also be added: > BSD 3-Clause License and/or Public domain > ----------------------------------------- > libecoli-0.2.0-build/libecoli-0.2.0/include/ecoli_murmurhash.h b, c and d, done. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rjarry/libecoli/8fb9678a9556f432fce2a559fb283cbdc50634a0/libecoli.spec SRPM URL: https://f.jarry.cc/libecoli-0.2.0-3.fc40.src.rpm I do have a question regarding man page links. Doxygen automatically generates man "links" that are plain text files which contain a reference to another man page. Is it possible to automatically replace these with a symbolic link after compression? rpmlint complains about duplicate files: libecoli-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/man/man3/ec_parse_t.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/EC_INIT_REGISTER.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_NODE_CMD.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_NODE_OR.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_NODE_SEQ.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_NODE_SUBSET.3.gz:(and 39 more) libecoli-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/man/man3/ec_vlog.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/EC_LOG.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_LOG_TYPE_REGISTER.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_VLOG.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/ec_log.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/ec_log_default_cb.3.gz:(and 7 more) libecoli-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/man/man3/ec_pnode_unlink_child.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/EC_PARSE_NOMATCH.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_PNODE_FOREACH_CHILD.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_PNODE_GET_ROOT.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/EC_PNODE_ITER_NEXT.3.gz:/usr/share/man/man3/ec_parse.3.gz:(and 21 more) libecoli-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/man/man3/ec_strvec_val.3.gz ... Thanks for the review.
Created attachment 2053753 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8176308 to 8177936
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8177936 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321778-libecoli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08177936-libecoli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD 3-Clause License and/or Public domain'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rjarry/libecoli/98f5a9de2a240878d15df4dbc7ccac6f5162663a/libecoli.spec SRPM URL: https://f.jarry.cc/libecoli-0.2.0-4.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2053754 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8177936 to 8177999
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8177999 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321778-libecoli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08177999-libecoli/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.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rjarry/libecoli/1a880a7223db/libecoli.spec SRPM URL: https://f.jarry.cc/libecoli-0.2.0-5.fc41.src.rpm I have dealt with the duplicate files warnings reported by rpmlint.
Created attachment 2053877 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8177999 to 8179921
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8179921 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321778-libecoli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08179921-libecoli/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 Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or Public domain". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libecoli/2321778-libecoli/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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 1530 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libecoli-devel [ ]: 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. [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]: 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: [!]: 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: libecoli-0.2.0-5.fc42.x86_64.rpm libecoli-devel-0.2.0-5.fc42.x86_64.rpm libecoli-doc-0.2.0-5.fc42.noarch.rpm libecoli-debuginfo-0.2.0-5.fc42.x86_64.rpm libecoli-debugsource-0.2.0-5.fc42.x86_64.rpm libecoli-0.2.0-5.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/tmpajeqd0rm')] checks: 32, packages: 6 libecoli.src: E: spelling-error ('libedit', '%description -l en_US libedit -> lib edit, lib-edit, edibility') libecoli.src: E: spelling-error ('readline', '%description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline') libecoli.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libedit', '%description -l en_US libedit -> lib edit, lib-edit, edibility') libecoli.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('readline', '%description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline') ======== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 33 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 6.8 s ======== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libecoli-debuginfo-0.2.0-5.fc42.x86_64.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/tmpbg0nh615')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ========= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.4 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: 5 libecoli.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libedit', '%description -l en_US libedit -> lib edit, lib-edit, edibility') libecoli.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('readline', '%description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline') 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 30 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 10.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rjarry/libecoli/archive/v0.2.0/libecoli-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0da8f953e054dd2ba75a0d1dcbbc8830b76747282035e1d1de6082ec3bb6f995 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0da8f953e054dd2ba75a0d1dcbbc8830b76747282035e1d1de6082ec3bb6f995 Requires -------- libecoli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libedit.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libecoli-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libecoli(x86-64) libecoli-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libecoli-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libecoli-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libecoli: libecoli libecoli(x86-64) libecoli.so.0()(64bit) libecoli-devel: libecoli-devel libecoli-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libecoli) libecoli-doc: libecoli-doc libecoli-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libecoli-debuginfo libecoli-debuginfo(x86-64) libecoli-debugsource: libecoli-debugsource libecoli-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libecoli/2321778-libecoli/srpm/libecoli.spec 2024-10-28 04:43:20.103045026 +0300 +++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libecoli/2321778-libecoli/srpm-unpacked/libecoli.spec 2024-10-26 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 5; + 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 + # SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause # Copyright (c) 2024 Robin Jarry Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2321778 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Perl, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please use %autochangelog as %autorelease is being used. This will make sure release tags match in the changelog. If not appropriate, would suggest incrementing releases manually. b) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125308885 c) Approved. Please fix (a) on import. d) Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322081 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322083 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
Hello @rjarry, since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package sponsor before it can be accepted. A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to packaging. You can find all active sponsors here: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/ I created a sponsorship request for you: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/690 Please take a look and make sure the information is correct. Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #16) > Comments: > a) Please use %autochangelog as %autorelease is being used. > This will make sure release tags match in the changelog. If not > appropriate, would suggest incrementing releases manually. Will do. Thanks for the review! > b) Koji build: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125308885 > c) Approved. Please fix (a) on import. > d) Review of one of: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322081 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322083 > > would be appreciated if time and expertise allow. I don't have the expertise to review any of these 3 packages. Sorry...
spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rjarry/libecoli/6b0fbc037f8e41f4055af9ef50edd763acbd8707/libecoli.spec srpm: https://f.jarry.cc/libecoli-0.3.0-2.fc41.src.rpm
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libecoli
FEDORA-2024-3e6046fe51 (libecoli-0.3.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3e6046fe51
FEDORA-2024-3e6046fe51 (libecoli-0.3.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.