Spec URL: https://f.jarry.cc/grout-0.3-1.spec SRPM URL: https://f.jarry.cc/grout-0.3-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Graph router based on DPDK Fedora Account System Username: rjarry
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8492784 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2336522-grout/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08492784-grout/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.
libecoli 0.4.0 has been accepted in rawhide, so I was assuming it would build. Despite the BuildRequires: libecoli-devel >= 0.4.0-1 statement, it seems that 0.3.0-1 is installed anyway. I am not sure how to proceed.
Nevermind, it was a typo in the BuildRequires... https://f.jarry.cc/grout-0.3-2.fc42.src.rpm https://f.jarry.cc/grout-0.3-2.spec
Created attachment 2065278 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8492784 to 8492852
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8492852 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2336522-grout/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08492852-grout/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: ======= No issue found, I have not used the package, but as that's packaged by upstream, I assume that should be covered. ===== 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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT No Attribution". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/grout/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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 22076 bytes in 2 files. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in grout [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: grout-0.3-2.fc42.x86_64.rpm grout-devel-0.3-2.fc42.x86_64.rpm grout-0.3-2.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/tmpz8dt1wgn')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: grout-debuginfo-0.3-2.fc42.x86_64.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/tmpwd27ffam')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "grout". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "grout-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "grout-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: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DPDK/grout/archive/v0.3/grout-0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 79f8349f2a6eadff229fb82b75a2b72bb335f1dc9880612c52190bab11d789a9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 79f8349f2a6eadff229fb82b75a2b72bb335f1dc9880612c52190bab11d789a9 Requires -------- grout (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash config(grout) libc.so.6()(64bit) libecoli.so.0()(64bit) libevent_core-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libevent_pthreads-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libnuma.so.1()(64bit) libnuma.so.1(libnuma_1.1)(64bit) libnuma.so.1(libnuma_1.2)(64bit) librte_eal.so.25()(64bit) librte_eal.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_ethdev.so.25()(64bit) librte_ethdev.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_fib.so.25()(64bit) librte_fib.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_graph.so.25()(64bit) librte_graph.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_hash.so.25()(64bit) librte_hash.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_log.so.25()(64bit) librte_log.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_mbuf.so.25()(64bit) librte_mbuf.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_mempool.so.25()(64bit) librte_mempool.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_rib.so.25()(64bit) librte_rib.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) librte_ring.so.25()(64bit) librte_ring.so.25(DPDK_25)(64bit) libsmartcols.so.1()(64bit) libsmartcols.so.1(SMARTCOLS_2.25)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) grout-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): grout(x86-64) Provides -------- grout: config(grout) grout grout(x86-64) grout-devel: grout-devel grout-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name grout --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grout
FEDORA-2025-5c69a154fb (grout-0.5-3.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5c69a154fb
FEDORA-2025-5c69a154fb (grout-0.5-3.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.