Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/optional-lite.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/optional-lite-3.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: A single-file header-only version of a C++17-like optional, a nullable object for C++98, C++11 and later. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a trivial header-only C++ library. I am packaging it in order to unbundle it from libsonata. It will therefore be a neuro-sig package. Note that lest (bug 2335942) can have a noarch -devel package per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_use_noarch_only_in_subpackages because it has no arch-dependent paths. Because optional-lite-devel installs CMake files in %{_libdir}, which may be either /usr/lib or /usr/lib64, optional-lite must have an arched -devel package.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8481657 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2336142-optional-lite/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08481657-optional-lite/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8494488 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2336142-optional-lite/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08494488-optional-lite/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]: 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", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /FedoraPackaging/reviews/optional-lite/2336142-optional- lite/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 [ ]: 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. [-]: 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 41904 bytes in 9 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. [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]: 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 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: optional-lite-devel-3.6.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm optional-lite-3.6.0-1.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/tmpm368th6s')] checks: 32, packages: 2 optional-lite.src: E: spelling-error ('nullable', 'Summary(en_US) nullable -> null able, null-able, callable') optional-lite.src: E: spelling-error ('nullable', '%description -l en_US nullable -> null able, null-able, callable') optional-lite-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('nullable', '%description -l en_US nullable -> null able, null-able, callable') optional-lite-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.0 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 optional-lite-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('nullable', '%description -l en_US nullable -> null able, null-able, callable') optional-lite-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/martinmoene/optional-lite/archive/v3.6.0/optional-lite-3.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2be17fcfc764809612282c3e728cabc42afe703b9dc333cc87c48d882fcfc2c2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2be17fcfc764809612282c3e728cabc42afe703b9dc333cc87c48d882fcfc2c2 Requires -------- optional-lite-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) Provides -------- optional-lite-devel: cmake(optional-lite) optional-lite-devel optional-lite-devel(x86-64) optional-lite-static Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2336142 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Java, Python, R, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127708584 b) GDB has directories in %{_datadir}/gdb/python/gdb/printer/ The prettyprinter file needs to be loaded when gdb is used, see for example https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/wiki/Setup-GDB-with-Qt-pretty-printers https://github.com/askyx/pg_pretty_printer However, a system wide policy would make this useful and prevent conflicts from multiply defined items. There is a rust package for pretty printing https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust/blob/rawhide/f/rust.spec#_478 Libreoffice also has a package for that: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libreoffice/blob/rawhide/f/libreoffice.spec#_769 It does not block the current review
Thank you for the review! https://release-monitoring.org/project/267567/ (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > b) GDB has directories in > %{_datadir}/gdb/python/gdb/printer/ > > The prettyprinter file needs to be loaded when gdb is used, see for example > https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/wiki/Setup-GDB-with-Qt-pretty- > printers > https://github.com/askyx/pg_pretty_printer > > However, a system wide policy would make this useful and prevent conflicts > from multiply > defined items. > > There is a rust package for pretty printing > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust/blob/rawhide/f/rust.spec#_478 > > Libreoffice also has a package for that: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libreoffice/blob/rawhide/f/libreoffice. > spec#_769 > > It does not block the current review Thank you. These are useful pointers. I am still not confident I know how to do this entirely correctly for a header-only library like this, so I think I’m going to stick with the status quo for now.
If you’re satisfied with the submission, could you please change the fedora-review flag to + to indicate approval? Thanks!
Done.
Thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/optional-lite
FEDORA-2025-e90f536a49 (optional-lite-3.6.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e90f536a49
FEDORA-2025-e90f536a49 (optional-lite-3.6.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-9b8199540d (lest-1.35.2-1.fc41 and optional-lite-3.6.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9b8199540d
FEDORA-2025-ad98df01d2 (lest-1.35.2-1.fc40 and optional-lite-3.6.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ad98df01d2
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fa95bfde62 (lest-1.35.2-1.el10_0 and optional-lite-3.6.0-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fa95bfde62
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7b4cacd42e (lest-1.35.2-2.el9 and optional-lite-3.6.0-2.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7b4cacd42e
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-721bd3feef (lest-1.35.2-2.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-721bd3feef
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-7b4cacd42e 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-2025-7b4cacd42e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9b8199540d 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-2025-9b8199540d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9b8199540d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-ad98df01d2 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-ad98df01d2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ad98df01d2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fa95bfde62 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-fa95bfde62 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-721bd3feef 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-2025-721bd3feef See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9b8199540d (lest-1.35.2-1.fc41, optional-lite-3.6.0-1.fc41, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-ad98df01d2 (lest-1.35.2-1.fc40, optional-lite-3.6.0-1.fc40, and 1 more) 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-fa95bfde62 (lest-1.35.2-1.el10_0, optional-lite-3.6.0-1.el10_0, and 1 more) 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-2025-721bd3feef (lest-1.35.2-2.el8, optional-lite-3.6.0-2.el8, and 1 more) 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-2025-7b4cacd42e (lest-1.35.2-2.el9, optional-lite-3.6.0-2.el9, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.