spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/sta-0^20231130-1/sta.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/sta-0^20231130-1/sta-0^20231130-1.fc41.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127020380 Description: sta is a lightweight, fast tool for calculating basic descriptive statistics from the command line. Inspired by "st", this project differs in that it is written in C++, allowing for faster computation of statistics given larger non-trivial data sets. Fedora Account System Username: suve
cxxtest is in fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/cxxtest/cxxtest Can the tests be run? See https://github.com/simonccarter/sta/tree/master/test
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/sta-0^20231130-2/sta.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/sta-0^20231130-2/sta-0^20231130-2.fc41.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127025003 The tests are now run in %check. Also added a man page for the program.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8422669 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2333373-sta/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08422669-sta/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.
Created attachment 2063305 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8422669 to 8422689
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8422689 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2333373-sta/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08422689-sta/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.
few things - ./autogen.sh just calls autorenconf, so replacve it with autoreconf --install --force --verbose for better transperency for the patch you can attach the .patch url for the pr[1] you could try looking into forge macros, which could make the spec file a bit more readable[2] also, you do not need make after installing automake [1] https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/simonccarter/sta/pull/13.patch [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control
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]: 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", "MIT License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/sta/2333373-sta/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. [-]: 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: 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 4263 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sta-0^20231130-2.fc42.x86_64.rpm sta-debuginfo-0^20231130-2.fc42.x86_64.rpm sta-debugsource-0^20231130-2.fc42.x86_64.rpm sta-0^20231130-2.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/tmpdj91qobt')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 3.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sta-debuginfo-0^20231130-2.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/tmpw76lmwsc')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 5.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/simonccarter/sta/archive/94559e3dfa97d415e3f37b1180b57c17c7222b4f/sta-94559e3dfa97d415e3f37b1180b57c17c7222b4f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1b2e3f900ba092625c626634fe6808d685c5ee5837b224d7b90c9c888e566fdd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b2e3f900ba092625c626634fe6808d685c5ee5837b224d7b90c9c888e566fdd Requires -------- sta (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sta-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sta-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sta: sta sta(x86-64) sta-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) sta-debuginfo sta-debuginfo(x86-64) sta-debugsource: sta-debugsource sta-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2333373 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please add the first part of the git hash to the version https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots_2 b) Direct link to patch as suggested may also be good. c) Approved. Please fix a before import, and consider b. d) Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329823 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sta
FEDORA-2024-cf42000f47 (sta-0^20231130.94559e3-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cf42000f47
FEDORA-2024-cf42000f47 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-2024-cf42000f47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cf42000f47 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-cf42000f47 (sta-0^20231130.94559e3-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.