Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/variant-lite.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/variant-lite-2.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: A single-file header-only library to represent a type-safe union. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a trivial header-only C++ library. It is similar to optional-lite, bug 2336142, by the same author. I am packaging it in order to unbundle it from libsonata. It will therefore be a neuro-sig package. Note that the tests fail to compile (and I have reported this upstream), but I *have* tested this with libsonata using https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsonata/pull-request/5, so I do know that the packaged header is usable.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8518655 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338399-variant-lite/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08518655-variant-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.
Only the C++17 tests fail, others pass: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128217697 Perhaps apply a patch, or modify the spec file to contain: %autosetup -n variant-lite-%{version} -p1 # Do not run C++17 tests, but run others pushd test sed -i 's/HAS_CPP17_FLAG TRUE/HAS_CPP17_FLAG FALSE/g' CMakeLists.txt popd # Unbundle lest
Thanks. That’s a great idea. I hadn’t realized that it was only the C++17 tests that were an issue. Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250120/variant-lite.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20250120/variant-lite-2.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2066815 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8518655 to 8553006
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8553006 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338399-variant-lite/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08553006-variant-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". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /FedoraPackaging/reviews/variant-lite/2338399-variant-lite/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/nonstd(optional- lite-devel) [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. [-]: 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 35297 bytes in 5 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 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. [ ]: %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: variant-lite-devel-2.0.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm variant-lite-2.0.0-1.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/tmpbee_s2n6')] checks: 32, packages: 2 variant-lite-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 variant-lite-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/martinmoene/variant-lite/archive/v2.0.0/variant-lite-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 70c1509e24d03abfd22d2e702ab398238e69658b7b2890ce1d7e9731d6b5a7cb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 70c1509e24d03abfd22d2e702ab398238e69658b7b2890ce1d7e9731d6b5a7cb Requires -------- variant-lite-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) Provides -------- variant-lite-devel: cmake(variant-lite) variant-lite-devel variant-lite-devel(x86-64) variant-lite-static Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2338399 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, R, PHP, fonts, Python, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Approved b) Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2338778 would be appreciated if time allows.
Thank you for the review! I finished an initial review of bug 2338778. https://release-monitoring.org/project/267575/
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/variant-lite
FEDORA-2025-0235294118 (variant-lite-2.0.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0235294118
FEDORA-2025-0235294118 (variant-lite-2.0.0-1.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, optional-lite-3.6.0-1.fc41, and 1 more) 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, optional-lite-3.6.0-1.el10_0, and 1 more) 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, optional-lite-3.6.0-2.el9, and 1 more) 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, optional-lite-3.6.0-2.el8, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-721bd3feef
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-2025-7b4cacd42e 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-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.