Spec URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/nghttp3/nghttp3.spec SRPM URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/nghttp3/nghttp3-1.12.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: nghttp3 is an implementation of RFC 9114 HTTP/3 mapping over QUIC and RFC 9204 QPACK in C. It does not depend on any particular QUIC transport implementation. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9732876 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406371-nghttp3/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09732876-nghttp3/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]: 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. [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: 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 1939 bytes in 1 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libnghttp3-1.12.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libnghttp3-devel-1.12.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm nghttp3-1.12.0-1.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/tmpxehv20vh')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xf4f3b91474d1eb29889bd0ef7e8403d5d673c366#/tatsuhiro-t.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c66a1c01ee71273b4714ea6e2bfa0a68d84d427d56daf31cf5789198fe5b1b9e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c66a1c01ee71273b4714ea6e2bfa0a68d84d427d56daf31cf5789198fe5b1b9e https://github.com/ngtcp2/nghttp3/releases/download/v1.12.0/nghttp3-1.12.0.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58cc65ccbf825efa40c55214d0f89602db1ee872adc69bcfd498ad1c1000112b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58cc65ccbf825efa40c55214d0f89602db1ee872adc69bcfd498ad1c1000112b https://github.com/ngtcp2/nghttp3/releases/download/v1.12.0/nghttp3-1.12.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6ca1e523b7edd75c02502f2bcf961125c25577e29405479016589c5da48fc43d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6ca1e523b7edd75c02502f2bcf961125c25577e29405479016589c5da48fc43d Requires -------- libnghttp3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnghttp3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libnghttp3(x86-64) libnghttp3.so.9()(64bit) Provides -------- libnghttp3: libnghttp3 libnghttp3(x86-64) libnghttp3.so.9()(64bit) libnghttp3-devel: libnghttp3-devel libnghttp3-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libnghttp3) Some comments: a) URL: https://nghttp2.org/nghttp3/ this contains docs only, better to use github url here? b) %build autoreconf -fiv Why is autoreconf needed? c) find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' simpler to use -delete option? find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete d) just drop use of %name macro? E.g. this is not very readable: %files -n lib%{name}
Spec URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/nghttp3/nghttp3.spec SRPM URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/nghttp3/nghttp3-1.12.0-1.fc43.src.rpm (In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #2) > Some comments: > > a) > URL: https://nghttp2.org/nghttp3/ > this contains docs only, better to use github url here? Technically, URL field should point to the upstream project's website and https://nghttp2.org/nghttp3/ is the official website. Although, as you noted, GitHub URL is more informative. Applied. > > b) > > %build > autoreconf -fiv > > Why is autoreconf needed? It's not needed per se, but has some benefits. Debian policy recommends to autoreconf on build, see https://wiki.debian.org/Autoreconf for the rationale, and there were several attempts to introduce a similar policy in Fedora. Most recently this was recently discussed in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/URIOGXSIURJGTAGYCBJ5CD7FM47DXRKR/ and https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/URIOGXSIURJGTAGYCBJ5CD7FM47DXRKR/#LGNSVJXVEXNIMIBLW7ETGB3C6Y5JCW7X > c) > find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' > > simpler to use -delete option? > > find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete `-delete` is a GNU extension, and I prefer POSIX syntax. Also, this line is taken as is from the default spec template. > > d) just drop use of %name macro? E.g. this is not very readable: > > %files -n lib%{name} Makes sense. Done.
Created attachment 2110994 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9732876 to 9735308
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9735308 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406371-nghttp3/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09735308-nghttp3/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 for quick feedback and links about autoreconf, to me it seems using autoreconf regardless helps maintaining package in a distro (such Debian and Fedora), however might hide upstream issues that would be nice to report? Any way, this is not a blocker, rest of changes are fine, hence package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nghttp3
FEDORA-2025-53120e5142 (nghttp3-1.12.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-53120e5142
FEDORA-2025-53120e5142 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-2025-53120e5142 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-53120e5142 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-53120e5142 (nghttp3-1.12.0-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.