Spec URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/k2hash.spec SRPM URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/k2hash-1.0.97-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: K2HASH provides a NoSQL(key value store) tools and a library under MIT license. K2HASH tools create/write/read files or memory which is allocated by K2HASH library. K2HASH library stores its data in three ways: on-memory, fully mapping file and partially mapping file and directly accessing a file. Fedora Account System Username: hiwkby
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8347627 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2330726-k2hash/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08347627-k2hash/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 ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "FSF All Permissive License". 133 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/k2hash/2330726-k2hash/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 20982 bytes in 6 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 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: [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/yahoojapan/k2hash/archive/v1.0.97/k2hash-1.0.97.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 585740b335d6f023368887a636854e75fb54fae3b5d56e2dd40923ddff6c8898 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 585740b335d6f023368887a636854e75fb54fae3b5d56e2dd40923ddff6c8898 Requires -------- k2hash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libfullock(x86-64) libfullock.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libk2hash.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnspr4.so()(64bit) libnss3.so()(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.3)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.9.2)(64bit) libnssutil3.so()(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libplds4.so()(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) k2hash-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): k2hash-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): k2hash-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config k2hash(x86-64) libfullock-devel(x86-64) libk2hash.so.1()(64bit) Provides -------- k2hash: k2hash k2hash(x86-64) libk2hash.so.1()(64bit) k2hash-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) k2hash-debuginfo k2hash-debuginfo(x86-64) libk2hash.so.1.0.97-1.0.97-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) k2hash-debugsource: k2hash-debugsource k2hash-debugsource(x86-64) k2hash-devel: k2hash-devel k2hash-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libk2hash) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2330726 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Haskell, R, Java, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Can the file listing be made more explicit to avoid possible inclusion of extra files without warning? %files %if 0%{?rhel} == 6 %doc COPYING %defattr(-,root,root) %else %license COPYING %endif %doc README AUTHORS ChangeLog %{_libdir}/libk2hash.so.1* %{_mandir}/man1/* %{_bindir}/k2hbench %{_bindir}/k2hcompress %{_bindir}/k2hedit %{_bindir}/k2himport %{_bindir}/k2hlinetool %{_bindir}/k2hreplace %{_bindir}/k2htouch # # devel package # %package devel Summary: NoSQL Key Value Store(KVS) tools and library (development) Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}, libfullock-devel%{?_isa} >= 1.0.36 %description devel Development package for building with k2hash shared library. This package has header files and symbols for it. %files devel %if 0%{?rhel} == 6 %defattr(-,root,root) %endif %doc README AUTHORS ChangeLog %{_includedir}/k2hash/* %{_libdir}/libk2hash.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libk2hash.pc b) Koji build is ok: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126687593
Hello Benson, Thank you for the comment! (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > (snip) > Comments: > a) Can the file listing be made more explicit to avoid possible inclusion of > extra files without warning? I fixed it and updated the spec file and source rpm file. Spec URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/k2hash.spec SRPM URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/k2hash-1.0.97-1.fc41.src.rpm Thanks in advance, Hirotaka
Created attachment 2062096 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8347627 to 8377102
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8377102 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2330726-k2hash/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08377102-k2hash/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.
Epel specific modifications are ok. The spec file still has: %files %license COPYING %doc README AUTHORS ChangeLog %{_libdir}/*.so.1* %{_mandir}/man1/* %{_bindir}/* %files devel %doc README AUTHORS ChangeLog %{_includedir}/* %{_libdir}/*.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc rather than %doc README AUTHORS ChangeLog %{_libdir}/libk2hash.so.1* %{_mandir}/man1/* %{_bindir}/k2hbench %{_bindir}/k2hcompress %{_bindir}/k2hedit %{_bindir}/k2himport %{_bindir}/k2hlinetool %doc README AUTHORS ChangeLog %{_includedir}/k2hash/* %{_libdir}/libk2hash.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libk2hash.pc %{_bindir}/k2hreplace %{_bindir}/k2htouch
Hi Benson, Thanks for the comment! I updated the spec file for clarification. Spec URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/k2hash.spec SRPM URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/k2hash-1.0.97-1.fc41.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8402523 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2330726-k2hash/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08402523-k2hash/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.
Sorry, I re-updated the spec and srpm. Please recheck them. Spec URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/k2hash.spec SRPM URL: https://hiwkby.fedorapeople.org/k2hash-1.0.97-1.fc42.src.rpm Thanks in advance, Hirotaka
Created attachment 2062766 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8402523 to 8402552
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8402552 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2330726-k2hash/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08402552-k2hash/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. One minor nit. On import, consider changing: %{_mandir}/man1/* to %{_mandir}/man1/k2hash.1* %{_mandir}/man1/k2hbench.1* %{_mandir}/man1/k2hcompress.1* %{_mandir}/man1/k2hedit.1* %{_mandir}/man1/k2himport.1* %{_mandir}/man1/k2hlinetool.1* %{_mandir}/man1/k2hreplace.1* %{_mandir}/man1/k2htouch.1* Not as critical as binary directory though. Approved.
Hi Benson, thanks for the review! > Thanks. One minor nit. On import, consider changing: I see. :)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/k2hash
FEDORA-2024-0a3531735c (k2hash-1.0.97-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0a3531735c
FEDORA-2024-0a3531735c (k2hash-1.0.97-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4efee1b4c0 (k2hash release on EPEL10) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4efee1b4c0
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4efee1b4c0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4efee1b4c0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-aa0567ab18 (k2hash on Fedora41 branch) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-aa0567ab18
FEDORA-2025-b99fbb1091 (k2hash on Fedora40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b99fbb1091
FEDORA-2025-b99fbb1091 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b99fbb1091 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b99fbb1091 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-aa0567ab18 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-aa0567ab18 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-aa0567ab18 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4efee1b4c0 (k2hash release on EPEL10) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-aa0567ab18 (k2hash on Fedora41 branch) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-b99fbb1091 (k2hash on Fedora40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7ad2ab54a3 (k2hash on EPEL9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7ad2ab54a3
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4e5253c8 (k2hash on EPEL8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4e5253c8
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7ad2ab54a3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7ad2ab54a3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4e5253c8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4e5253c8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7ad2ab54a3 (k2hash on EPEL9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4e5253c8 (k2hash on EPEL8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-4486a10cc8 (k2hash-1.0.98 on Fedora41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4486a10cc8
FEDORA-2025-84eb0b7b2f (k2hash-1.0.98 on Fedora40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-84eb0b7b2f
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-628d46a322 (k2hash-1.0.98 on EPEL9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-628d46a322
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-51a34e2f3e (k2hash-1.0.98 on EPEL8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-51a34e2f3e
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-202381b0a4 (k2hash-1.0.98 on EPEL10) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-202381b0a4
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-628d46a322 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-628d46a322 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-51a34e2f3e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-51a34e2f3e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-84eb0b7b2f has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-84eb0b7b2f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-84eb0b7b2f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-4486a10cc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4486a10cc8` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4486a10cc8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-202381b0a4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-202381b0a4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-202381b0a4 (k2hash-1.0.98 on EPEL10) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-51a34e2f3e (k2hash-1.0.98 on EPEL8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-628d46a322 (k2hash-1.0.98 on EPEL9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-4486a10cc8 (k2hash-1.0.98 on Fedora41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-84eb0b7b2f (k2hash-1.0.98 on Fedora40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.