Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/ff0a4d1803a96df399b09a539ad5428008034e05/libcpucycles.spec SRPM URL: https:/georg.so/pub/libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: libcpucycles support several machine-level cycle counters and OS-level mechanisms on many CPU architectures and auto-selects the best performing one when it's initialized. Fedora Account System Username: gsauthof
Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/6b23ac7435b32b22bb6b183f1d59f8b3f878a012/libcpucycles.spec SRPM URL: https:/georg.so/pub/libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43.src.rpm A small update: In case the build architecture actually has _libdir set to /usr/lib the move would fail thus it's guarded now. Diff: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/commit/6b23ac7435b32b22bb6b183f1d59f8b3f878a012
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
Donating another / to the SRPM URL ... Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/6b23ac7435b32b22bb6b183f1d59f8b3f878a012/libcpucycles.spec SRPM URL: https://georg.so/pub/libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10042068 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430713-libcpucycles/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10042068-libcpucycles/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.
Benson, thank you for taking this review. Did you have a chance to start the review, yet? Any comments I should address?
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: [ ]: 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* Public domain". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libcpucycles/2430713- libcpucycles/licensecheck.txt [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. [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. [ ]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 74678 bytes in 4 files. [ ]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libcpucycles-static. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libcpucycles-static [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: gpgverify is not used. [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]: 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: libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libcpucycles-devel-20260105-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libcpucycles-static-20260105-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libcpucycles-20260105-1.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/tmpjjzwjnal')] checks: 32, packages: 4 libcpucycles-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libcpucycles development files libcpucycles-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able') libcpucycles.spec:46: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 35 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libcpucycles-debuginfo-20260105-1.fc44.x86_64.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/tmpe5wonfbf')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 4 libcpucycles-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libcpucycles development files libcpucycles-static.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('linkable', '%description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 42 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://cpucycles.cr.yp.to/libcpucycles-20260105.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e87dcaaa28e905b574ccf3d49e23e05c73edb3f99136dcd566bca16829ab6694 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e87dcaaa28e905b574ccf3d49e23e05c73edb3f99136dcd566bca16829ab6694 Requires -------- libcpucycles (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcpucycles.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcpucycles-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcpucycles(x86-64) libcpucycles.so.1()(64bit) libcpucycles-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcpucycles-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- libcpucycles: libcpucycles libcpucycles(x86-64) libcpucycles.so.1()(64bit) libcpucycles-devel: libcpucycles-devel libcpucycles-devel(x86-64) libcpucycles-static: libcpucycles-static libcpucycles-static(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2430713 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Haskell, PHP, Java, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141769796 b) Please change %{_libdir}/libcpucycles.so.* to %{_libdir}/libcpucycles.so{,.*} see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files c) CC0-1 is not allowed for code in Fedora: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ Please change License: LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR CC0-1.0 OR 0BSD OR MIT-0 OR MIT to License: LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR 0BSD OR MIT-0 OR MIT d) Consider changing Summary: libcpucycles development files to Summary: Libcpucycles development files or Summary: Development files for libcpucycles
Ok, I updated the spec file: Spec URL: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/raw/commit/ee1221c804171003d9eb64d8081f8c8b64f2d400/libcpucycles.spec SRPM URL: https://georg.so/pub/libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43.src.rpm Spec Diff: https://codeberg.org/gms/fedora-pkg-submission/commit/ee1221c804171003d9eb64d8081f8c8b64f2d400 The koji builds look fine. The glob for the shared library is now more specific. I've dropped the CC0-1.0 license tag. Wasn't sure how complete the license expression has to be, since upstream does include CC0-1.0. However, the omission doesn't really matter since in both versions the license expression evaluates to true under the Fedora license requirements. Also updated the summary.
Thanks. Approved. Review one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428466 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2424814 would be appreciated if time allows.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libcpucycles
FEDORA-2026-324c46b7fc (libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-324c46b7fc
FEDORA-2026-324c46b7fc (libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573 (libcpucycles-20260105-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-0f6b73856a (libcpucycles-20260105-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-0f6b73856a
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121 (libcpucycles-20260105-1.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121
FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573 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-2026-fcfbcd0573 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fcfbcd0573 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-42a6dc3121 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2026-0f6b73856a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-0f6b73856a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.