Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-42-x86_64/08675260-xchange/xchange.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-42-x86_64/08675260-xchange/xchange-1.0.0.rc3-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: xchange is a structured data representation and exchange framework for C, with JSON outputting and parsing capabilities. Fedora Account System Username: attipaci xchange is a completely free (Unlicense) framework for generic representation of structured data in C (C99 or later). It can be used e.g. to convert native structured data to platform-independent serialized formats, and vice versa. It readily includes a JSON parser and emitter functions. For JSON, xchange provides a higher-level data model than the cjson library, with more high-level functions to access and manipulate JSON data. Finally, xchange is a dependence to RedisX, an independent Redis/Valkey client library, which is completely free also, and which I expect to package for Fedora soon after xchange. The current release candidate (v1.0.0.rc3) builds cleanly on Copr. The finalized v1.0.0 upstream release is expected around 15 April 2025. -- Attila.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8675815 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346787-xchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675815-xchange/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xchange Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Documentation size is 1433020 bytes in 162 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
- Renamed to `libxchange` to avoid name conflict with the unmaintained (and unreleased) 'xchange' package. - The documentation is doxygen-generated HTML with search capability. Hence the large size and number of files.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675906-libxchange/libxchange.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675906-libxchange/libxchange-1.0.0.rc3-1.fc43.src.rpm - Updated after renaming to 'libxchange'.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8675913 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346787-libxchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675913-libxchange/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Documentation size is 1433020 bytes in 162 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1433020 bytes in 162 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== 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", "*No copyright* The Unlicense". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/libxchange/2346787-libxchange/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1587200 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libxchange-1.0.0.rc3-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm libxchange-devel-1.0.0.rc3-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm libxchange-doc-1.0.0.rc3-1.fc42.noarch.rpm libxchange-1.0.0.rc3-1.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/tmpn8muo2_r')] checks: 32, packages: 4 libxchange-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libxchange.so libxchange-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/variables_6.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_15.js libxchange-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_0.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_3.js libxchange-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_4.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_e.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/variables_6.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_15.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_0.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_3.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_4.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_e.js 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 134 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libxchange-devel-debuginfo-1.0.0.rc3-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm libxchange-debuginfo-1.0.0.rc3-1.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/tmpmau8rjow')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 5 libxchange-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libxchange.so libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/variables_6.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_15.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_0.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_3.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_4.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_e.js libxchange-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/variables_6.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_15.js libxchange-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_0.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_3.js libxchange-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_4.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_e.js 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 146 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Smithsonian/xchange/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.0-rc3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4f96b8faf364876f223c1e54dcb9c7ded4171fc11efa48120c746c63c7b5319e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4f96b8faf364876f223c1e54dcb9c7ded4171fc11efa48120c746c63c7b5319e Requires -------- libxchange (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libxchange-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libxchange(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libxchange-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libxchange Provides -------- libxchange: libxchange libxchange(x86-64) libxchange.so.1()(64bit) libxchange-devel: libxchange-devel libxchange-devel(x86-64) libxchange.so.1()(64bit) libxchange-doc: libxchange-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2346787 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Python, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) The doc package need not require the main package. Consider adding the license file to the doc package. b) The devel package contains an extra copy of the html documentation. Remove %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}/* from the spec file c) If you generate man pages using doxygen, consider adding them to the main package. d) Consider making a build on koji to check there are not problems on other architectures.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-42-x86_64/08686870-libxchange/libxchange.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-42-x86_64/08686870-libxchange/libxchange-1.0.0.rc3-1.fc42.src.rpm Thanks for the review, - `doc` no longer requires the main package. - Added LICENSE to `doc` also (since it no longer requires the main package). - Removed the duplicate documentation from the `devel` package. - I find the `doxygen` generated man pages are pretty useless in their current form, so they are not being packaged. - Copr has builds for all supported arches (the same build ID [08686870] as the Spec and SRPM above). They all build clean. -- A.
Created attachment 2077464 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8675913 to 8686875
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8686875 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346787-libxchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08686875-libxchange/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. a) Fedora review reports an error: libxchange-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libxchange.so $ rpmlint -e no-ldconfig-symlink no-ldconfig-symlink: The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so that the link gets removed by rpm automatically when the package gets removed). b) May wish to update %description doc This package provides man pages and HTML documentation for the xchange C/C++ library. to %description doc This package provides HTML documentation for the xchange C/C++ library.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08693368-libxchange/libxchange.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08693368-libxchange/libxchange-1.0.0.rc4-1.fc43.src.rpm Thanks again. - Indeed, the `Makefile` installed the same shared lib twice under different names, rather than copying the symlink of the local build. I think it is OK now. - I've updated the description of the `doc` package as suggested. (Indeed, initially I planned to include the man pages before realizing that they were crap.) -- A.
Created attachment 2077573 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8686875 to 8693381
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8693381 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346787-libxchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08693381-libxchange/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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-42-aarch64/08694440-libxchange/libxchange.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-42-aarch64/08694440-libxchange/libxchange-1.0.0.rc4-1.fc42.src.rpm - Fixed spelling error in description
Created attachment 2077626 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8693381 to 8694457
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8694457 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346787-libxchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08694457-libxchange/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.
Hi Benson! I think I had all the issues you noted fixed last week. Can you check if there is anything else before you can close this ticket, and I can proceed to package for the testing repos? Thanks, -- Attila.
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", "*No copyright* The Unlicense". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxchange/2346787-libxchange/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. [ ]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3447 bytes in 2 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: 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: libxchange-1.0.0.rc4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libxchange-devel-1.0.0.rc4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libxchange-doc-1.0.0.rc4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm libxchange-1.0.0.rc4-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpp7ytuniy')] checks: 32, packages: 4 libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/variables_6.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_15.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_0.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_3.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_4.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_e.js 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 26 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libxchange-debuginfo-1.0.0.rc4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4ug49vlb')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 4 libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/variables_6.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_15.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_0.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_3.js libxchange-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/defines_4.js /usr/share/doc/libxchange/html/search/all_e.js 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 27 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Smithsonian/xchange/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.0-rc4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c7a7e79a0078b05f3bae30df5e9f2326faea41f5778264b85cdadfae3ce44253 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c7a7e79a0078b05f3bae30df5e9f2326faea41f5778264b85cdadfae3ce44253 Requires -------- libxchange (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libxchange-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libxchange(x86-64) libxchange.so.1()(64bit) libxchange-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libxchange: libxchange libxchange(x86-64) libxchange.so.1()(64bit) libxchange-devel: libxchange-devel libxchange-devel(x86-64) libxchange-doc: libxchange-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2346787 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Python, Perl, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Thanks for the updates and bringing this to Fedora. b) Can the headers be put in /usr/include/libexchange ? This would prevent likelihood of conflicts with header files from other packages. Not a must, but nice to have. c) Please use the macro %{_includedir} instead of %{_prefix}/include d) Please update to latest release candidate. e) Approved. Please make at least change (c) before import.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08744760-libxchange/libxchange.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/xchange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08744760-libxchange/libxchange-1.0.0.rc5-1.fc43.src.rpm Thanks Benson, - I changed the spec file to use the `%{_includedir}` macro. - Updated to the latest release candidate upstream (1.0.0.rc5) I've mulled over the suggestion of putting the headers files into a package sub-directory. However, after having slept on it, I decided against it. It's just two header files, both of which are named uniquely enough that it is unlikely to run into naming conflicts. And if some future package does conflict, oh well, it will be up to them to put their headers into a sub-folder to distinguish. Keeping them in %{_includedir} directly, provides easier access to them in general, and causes less divergence between linking against the upstream vs. the Fedora package. So in the end, the latter won the debate for me. cheers, -- A.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libxchange
FEDORA-2025-1bc23f72ad (libxchange-1.0.0.rc5-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1bc23f72ad
FEDORA-2025-1bc23f72ad (libxchange-1.0.0.rc5-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-a19adb7a93 (libxchange-1.0.0~rc5-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a19adb7a93
FEDORA-2025-a19adb7a93 (libxchange-1.0.0~rc5-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ef0fc11610 (libxchange-1.0.0-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ef0fc11610
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ef0fc11610 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ef0fc11610 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ef0fc11610 (libxchange-1.0.0-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.