Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2.spec SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2-3.3.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: a C++ <-> Lua API wrapper with advanced features and top notch performance. Fedora Account System Username: solomoncyj
Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2.spec SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2-3.3.0-1.fc44.src.rpm - Uncommitted changes
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9602272 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399600-sol2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09602272-sol2/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 2107627 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9602272 to 9602278
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9602278 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399600-sol2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09602278-sol2/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.
Created attachment 2107628 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9602278 to 9602338
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9602338 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399600-sol2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09602338-sol2/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.
A couple of questions/remarks: - If only headers are packaged and tests are disabled, what does CMake even do there? Just installs the files? - Why depend on `pkgconfig(lua)` and not `lua-devel`? CMake uses its own find_package() scripts to find Lua and not pkgconfig. - Consider building and packaging the API documentation included in the sources. Other than that looks fine to me.
Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2.spec SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2-3.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm build docs
i am using cmake to install as i want the .cmake files
Issues: ======= - Could you mark the -docs package as noarch? (see EXTRA section) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. NOTE: The package provides development files only. The base package contains nothing. [x]: 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: Upstream does not provide signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.Could you mark the -docs package as noarch? NOTE: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140761336 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. NOTE: Tests are disabled and there's a justifying comment for that. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 5601280 bytes in /usr/share [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: sol2-devel-3.3.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm sol2-devel-docs-3.3.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm sol2-3.3.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpht9xihk4')] checks: 32, packages: 3 sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/lua_value.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/metatable_key.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/table_traversal_keys.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/yielding.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/licenses.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sol2.spec: W: no-%check-section sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.buildinfo sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: E: devel-dependency sol2-devel 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings, 12 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 2 sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/lua_value.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/metatable_key.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/table_traversal_keys.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/yielding.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/licenses.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.buildinfo sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: E: devel-dependency sol2-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings, 8 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ThePhD/sol2/archive/v3.3.0/sol2-3.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b82c5de030e18cb2bcbcefcd5f45afd526920c517a96413f0b59b4332d752a1e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b82c5de030e18cb2bcbcefcd5f45afd526920c517a96413f0b59b4332d752a1e Requires -------- sol2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) lua-devel sol2-devel-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sol2-devel Provides -------- sol2-devel: cmake(sol2) pkgconfig(sol2) sol2-devel sol2-devel(x86-64) sol2-devel-docs: sol2-devel-docs sol2-devel-docs(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399600 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Python, R, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Created attachment 2121176 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9602338 to 9975069
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9975069 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399600-sol2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09975069-sol2/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file licenses.doctree is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Documentation size is 5327120 bytes in 278 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.
I was trying to test a code snippet from the upstream repository for sanity, and ran into the following issue when trying to compile a program using the produced package: === In file included from /usr/include/sol/optional.hpp:33, from /usr/include/sol/types.hpp:28, from /usr/include/sol/trampoline.hpp:27, from /usr/include/sol/stack.hpp:27, from /usr/include/sol/sol.hpp:52, from main.cpp:1: /usr/include/sol/optional_implementation.hpp: In member function ‘T& sol::optional<T&>::emplace(Args&& ...)’: /usr/include/sol/optional_implementation.hpp:2194:31: error: ‘class sol::optional<T&>’ has no member named ‘construct’ [-Wtemplate-body] 2194 | this->construct(std::forward<Args>(args)...); === for the following program: === #include <sol/sol.hpp> #include <cassert> int main() { sol::state lua; int x = 0; lua.set_function("beep", [&x]{ ++x; }); lua.script("beep()"); assert(x == 1); } === Found this issue that's related: https://github.com/ThePhD/sol2/issues/1617 Considering the 3.3.0 release is fairly old at this point, you might want to apply patches or use the tags instead of the release. (It appears there are tags for v3.5.0 in the repo.)
Also, just to satisfy the rpmlint warnings, maybe consider deleting the sphinx cache leftovers from the -docs package. sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.buildinfo sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel-docs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees
Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2.spec SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2-3.5.0-1.fc44.src.rpm - Uncommitted changes
Created attachment 2121193 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9975069 to 9975161
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9975161 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399600-sol2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09975161-sol2/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.
Spec URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2.spec SRPM URL: https://solomoncyj.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sol2/sol2-3.5.0-1.fc43.src.rpm - Uncommitted changes
Created attachment 2121195 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9975161 to 9975182
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9975182 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399600-sol2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09975182-sol2/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file licenses.doctree is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Documentation size is 5328319 bytes in 278 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.
Can confirm the sample program now compiles and runs successfully with `g++ -llua main.cpp`. Hopefully last thing to change: could you remove the sphinx doc build leftovers before packaging -docs? .buildinfo and .doctrees. Comes from rpmlint warnings: sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.buildinfo sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/.doctrees
Created attachment 2121213 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9975182 to 9975852
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9975852 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399600-sol2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09975852-sol2/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file licenses.rst.txt is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Documentation size is 3337676 bytes in 201 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.
LGTM. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "Boost Software License 1.0". 303 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fvorobev/Work/reviews/2399600-sol2/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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [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]: 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]: 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.Tested [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sol2-devel , sol2-devel-docs NOTE: There's only a -devel package and sol2-devel-docs is a noarch package, so not applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. NOTE: Tested a sample program from the upstream README.md. [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. NOTE: Upstream does not provide signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. NOTE: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140772162 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. NOTE: Testing is disabled, justification comment present. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: sol2-devel-3.5.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm sol2-devel-docs-3.5.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm sol2-3.5.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpgolsq1xe')] checks: 32, packages: 3 sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/lua_value.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/metatable_key.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/table_traversal_keys.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/yielding.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/licenses.rst.txt sol2.spec: W: no-%check-section sol2-devel-docs.noarch: E: devel-dependency sol2-devel 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 12 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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.tomlsol2-devel-docs checks: 32, packages: 2 sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/lua_value.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/metatable_key.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/table_traversal_keys.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/yielding.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/licenses.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: E: devel-dependency sol2-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 8 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ThePhD/sol2/archive/v3.5.0/sol2-3.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 86c0f6d2836b184a250fc2907091c076bf53c9603dd291eaebade36cc342e13c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 86c0f6d2836b184a250fc2907091c076bf53c9603dd291eaebade36cc342e13c Requires -------- sol2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem lua-devel sol2-devel-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sol2-devel Provides -------- sol2-devel: cmake(sol2) pkgconfig(sol2) sol2-devel sol2-devel(x86-64) sol2-devel-docs: sol2-devel-docs Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399600 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sol2