spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/qthreads.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/qthreads-1.22-1.fc42.src.rpm description: The Qthreads API is designed to make using large numbers of threads convenient and easy. The Qthreads API also provides access to full/empty-bit (FEB) semantics, where every word of memory can be marked either full or empty, and a thread can wait for any word to attain either state. Qthreads is essentially a library for spawning and controlling stackful coroutines: threads with small (4-8k) stacks. The exposed user API resembles OS threads, however the threads are entirely in user-space and use their locked/unlocked status as part of their scheduling. The library's metaphor is that there are many Qthreads and several "shepherds". Shepherds generally map to specific processors or memory regions, but this is not an explicit part of the API. Qthreads are assigned to specific shepherds and are only allowed to migrate when running on a scheduler that supports work stealing or when migration is explicitly triggered via user APIs. The API includes utility functions for making threaded loops, sorting, and similar operations convenient. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9648885 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2401972-qthreads/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09648885-qthreads/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.
Get tests to work on ppc64le spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/qthreads.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/qthreads-1.22%5e20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2109018 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9648885 to 9667664
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9667664 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2401972-qthreads/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09667664-qthreads/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 file have: ExcludeArch: %{ix86} s390x why have ppc64le code as: %ifarch ppc64le then? Is s390x a ppc64le arch?
(In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #5) > spec file have: > > ExcludeArch: %{ix86} s390x > > why have ppc64le code as: > > %ifarch ppc64le then? > > Is s390x a ppc64le arch? The library apparently does not work at all on s390x, so the ExcludeArch ensures it will not be built there. The library does work on ppc64le, but it apparently needs to be configured differently than other architectures (with -DQTHREADS_CONTEXT_SWAP_IMPL=system), which is what the %ifarch does.
Ok, I see
Overall, this looks really good! There are just a few things that need a second look. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec - It would be better to remove the bundled HPGCC in the benchmarks in %prep to prove that it is not used in the build. # Remove bundled HPGCC, only for benchmarks, to show it is unused rm -rv test/benchmarks/mantevo/hpccg/ - Contents of test/benchmarks/mantevo/hpccg/ are a bundled copy of HPGCC under LGPL-2.1-or-later, which is of course acceptable in Fedora. Since these sources do not contribute to the binary RPMs, this term is correctly omitted from License. - The file COPYING contains three licenses. The first two are BSD-3-Clause and MIT, and are correctly represented in License. The third appears to be https://spdx.org/licenses/dtoa.html. Therefore, I belive the License should be: # Breakdown of licenses is documented in COPYING. License: BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND dtoa (You don’t have to add the comment if you don’t want to.) - This: %{_libdir}/libqthread.so.1* can be more precisely written as: %{_libdir}/libqthread.so.1{,.*} which would not match e.g. libqthread.so.14. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files This is a small quibble that’s unlikely to make a difference in practice. - For ExcludeArch: s390x, you need to document the reason in (for now) a comment. You sort of have this with # Unsupported architectures but that doesn’t really add any useful information. Maybe something like this? # This library relies on some low-level platform-specific code, so it can # only be expected to work on explicitly-supported architectures, and it only # compiles on architectures that upstream has attempted to support. See: # # https://github.com/sandialabs/qthreads/blob/1.22/README.md#compatibility # https://github.com/sandialabs/qthreads/blob/1.22/include/qthread/common.h#L44-L58. # # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ExcludeArch: %{ix86} s390x When you import the package, you must file a tracking bug with the details about the architecture incompatibility, make it block F-ExcludeArch-s390x, and link it from the spec-file comment; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures. If you like, you can then omit the description from the spec file and just link the bug. A tracking bug isn’t required for i686 due to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval. - The source includes API documentation in the form of man pages. You might consider adding these to the -devel subpackage: %install […] install -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man3' -p -m 0644 -D man/man3/*.3 […] %files devel %{_mandir}/man3/q*.3* […] ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 579 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2401972-qthreads/licensecheck.txt It looks like this should be: # Breakdown of licenses is documented in COPYING. License: BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND dtoa See Issues. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. This is no longer formally required, https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/issues/64, although I think a comment as suggested above would be helpful. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Bundled HPGCC is not used in the build. It would be better to remove it in %prep; see Issues. [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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ExcludeArch tag is present, but lacks documentation. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures See Issues. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 27351 bytes in 5 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (Except as mentioned.) [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. (Tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. A post-release snapshot is packaged, with adequate justification and with a valid snapshot information field in the Version. [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. Package is ExcludeArch: s390x. This is OK as long as it is correctly documented. The package does build on all of the architectures that it is supposed to build on: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137940277 [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]: 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: qthreads-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm qthreads-devel-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm qthreads-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdg7gdx3_')] checks: 32, packages: 3 qthreads.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stackful', '%description -l en_US stackful -> sackful, tactful') qthreads.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('coroutines', '%description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines') qthreads.src: E: spelling-error ('stackful', '%description -l en_US stackful -> sackful, tactful') qthreads.src: E: spelling-error ('coroutines', '%description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines') qthreads-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 25 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qthreads-debuginfo-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpubb1r96r')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 3 qthreads.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stackful', '%description -l en_US stackful -> sackful, tactful') qthreads.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('coroutines', '%description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines') qthreads-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 26 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sandialabs/qthreads/archive/cedb1fc6f725ea1a51dc9f5bbdc1ec6ec00e33d7/qthreads-cedb1fc.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 09a5877a8dd821374e5795d12b15187794831cb197c9e1c095247f8eab3cfe4d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09a5877a8dd821374e5795d12b15187794831cb197c9e1c095247f8eab3cfe4d Requires -------- qthreads (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qthreads-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(aarch-64) libqthread.so.1()(64bit) qthreads(aarch-64) Provides -------- qthreads: libqthread.so.1()(64bit) qthreads qthreads(aarch-64) qthreads-devel: cmake(qthread) qthreads-devel qthreads-devel(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2401972 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, fonts, Java, R, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the feedback. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8) > Overall, this looks really good! There are just a few things that need a > second > look. > > Issues: > ======= > - Dist tag is present. > > OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec > > - It would be better to remove the bundled HPGCC in the benchmarks in %prep > to > prove that it is not used in the build. > > # Remove bundled HPGCC, only for benchmarks, to show it is unused > rm -rv test/benchmarks/mantevo/hpccg/ > Done > - Contents of test/benchmarks/mantevo/hpccg/ are a bundled copy of HPGCC > under > LGPL-2.1-or-later, which is of course acceptable in Fedora. Since these > sources do not contribute to the binary RPMs, this term is correctly > omitted > from License. > > - The file COPYING contains three licenses. The first two are BSD-3-Clause > and > MIT, and are correctly represented in License. The third appears to be > https://spdx.org/licenses/dtoa.html. Therefore, I belive the License should > be: > > # Breakdown of licenses is documented in COPYING. > License: BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND dtoa Done > > (You don’t have to add the comment if you don’t want to.) > > - This: > > %{_libdir}/libqthread.so.1* > > can be more precisely written as: > > %{_libdir}/libqthread.so.1{,.*} Done > > which would not match e.g. libqthread.so.14. See: > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_listing_shared_library_files > > This is a small quibble that’s unlikely to make a difference in practice. > > - For ExcludeArch: s390x, you need to document the reason in (for now) a > comment. You sort of have this with > > # Unsupported architectures > > but that doesn’t really add any useful information. Maybe something like > this? > > # This library relies on some low-level platform-specific code, so it can > # only be expected to work on explicitly-supported architectures, and it > only > # compiles on architectures that upstream has attempted to support. See: > # > # > https://github.com/sandialabs/qthreads/blob/1.22/README.md#compatibility > # > https://github.com/sandialabs/qthreads/blob/1.22/include/qthread/common. > h#L44-L58. > # > # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval > ExcludeArch: %{ix86} s390x Done > > When you import the package, you must file a tracking bug with the details > about the architecture incompatibility, make it block F-ExcludeArch-s390x, > and link it from the spec-file comment; see > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_architecture_build_failures. > If you like, you can then omit the description from the spec file and just > link the bug. > > A tracking bug isn’t required for i686 due to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval. > > - The source includes API documentation in the form of man pages. You might > consider adding these to the -devel subpackage: > > %install > […] > install -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man3' -p -m 0644 -D man/man3/*.3 > > […] > > %files devel > %{_mandir}/man3/q*.3* > […] Done spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/qthreads.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/qthreads-1.22%5e20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc42.src.rpm spec: srpm:
Created attachment 2109189 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9667664 to 9674261
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9674261 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2401972-qthreads/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09674261-qthreads/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 All of the feedback from the previous review has been correctly addressed. After you import the package, please make sure to file the required tracking issue for the ExcludeArch and link it in the spec file. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 577 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2401972-qthreads/20251009/2401972-qthreads/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Bundled HPGCC is removed in %prep. [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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ExcludeArch tag is present and properly documented. Make sure to file the required tracking issue and link it in the spec file after you import the package. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 27351 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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. A post-release snapshot is packaged, with adequate justification and with a valid snapshot information field in the Version. [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. ExcludeArch tag is present and properly documented. Make sure to file the [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]: 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: qthreads-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm qthreads-devel-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm qthreads-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpietnnjdc')] checks: 32, packages: 3 qthreads.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stackful', '%description -l en_US stackful -> sackful, tactful') qthreads.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('coroutines', '%description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines') qthreads.src: E: spelling-error ('stackful', '%description -l en_US stackful -> sackful, tactful') qthreads.src: E: spelling-error ('coroutines', '%description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qthreads-debuginfo-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpef6gisox')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 3 qthreads.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stackful', '%description -l en_US stackful -> sackful, tactful') qthreads.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('coroutines', '%description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 26 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sandialabs/qthreads/archive/cedb1fc6f725ea1a51dc9f5bbdc1ec6ec00e33d7/qthreads-cedb1fc.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 09a5877a8dd821374e5795d12b15187794831cb197c9e1c095247f8eab3cfe4d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09a5877a8dd821374e5795d12b15187794831cb197c9e1c095247f8eab3cfe4d Requires -------- qthreads (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qthreads-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(aarch-64) libqthread.so.1()(64bit) qthreads(aarch-64) Provides -------- qthreads: libqthread.so.1()(64bit) qthreads qthreads(aarch-64) qthreads-devel: cmake(qthread) qthreads-devel qthreads-devel(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2401972 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Python, Java, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qthreads
FEDORA-2025-698ae78e80 (qthreads-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-698ae78e80
FEDORA-2025-0472d78b15 (qthreads-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0472d78b15
FEDORA-2025-0472d78b15 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-0472d78b15 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0472d78b15 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-698ae78e80 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-698ae78e80 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-698ae78e80 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-698ae78e80 (qthreads-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-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-2025-0472d78b15 (qthreads-1.22^20251007gitcedb1fc-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.