Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/edwardjedmonds/gstr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10050975-gstr/gstr.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/edwardjedmonds/gstr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10050975-gstr/gstr-2.0.2-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: gstr is a single-header UTF-8 string library for C providing grapheme-aware functions that operate on what users perceive as characters, not bytes. Handles emoji, CJK, combining marks, and all Unicode correctly. 60 functions across UTF-8 and grapheme layers. Zero dependencies. Fedora Account: edwardjedmonds COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/edwardjedmonds/gstr/ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Spec URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/edwardjedmonds/gstr/ SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/edwardjedmonds/gstr/ Description: gstr is a single-header UTF-8 string library for C providing grapheme-aware functions that operate on what users perceive as characters, not bytes. Handles emoji, CJK, combining marks, and all Unicode correctly. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. VERIFIED: gstr.h is in gstr-devel subpackage. 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. VERIFIED: MIT license is OSI-approved and Fedora-allowed. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. VERIFIED: All source files contain SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT headers. licensecheck confirms MIT License for all files. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. VERIFIED: No bundled libraries. gstr.h is original code implementing Unicode grapheme segmentation per UAX #29. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. VERIFIED: Changelog follows "* Day Mon DD YYYY Name <email> - version" format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. VERIFIED: Original code by maintainer, MIT licensed. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. NOT APPLICABLE: This is a C library, not a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package VERIFIED: Header file is in gstr-devel subpackage. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. VERIFIED: README.md is documentation only, not required at runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). VERIFIED: Uses %{_includedir}, %{buildroot}, etc. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. VERIFIED: "gstr" follows naming conventions (lowercase, no special chars). [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. VERIFIED: No Conflicts: tag, package name is unique. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. VERIFIED: Installs only to /usr/include (standard location for headers). [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. NOT APPLICABLE: This is a new package, not a rename. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. VERIFIED: No runtime Requires needed (header-only library). [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. VERIFIED: Spec is clear and uses American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. NOT APPLICABLE: Library package, no daemons/services. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. VERIFIED: Header-only library is architecture-independent (noarch). [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. VERIFIED: Documentation is only 28KB (README.md), well under 1MB threshold. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines VERIFIED: Follows all applicable guidelines for header-only C libraries. [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: All rpmlint "errors" are spelling complaints about function names (gstrlen, gstrcmp, etc.) which are intentional technical terms. [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: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. VERIFIED: LICENSE file is included upstream. All source files have SPDX headers. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). VERIFIED: Provides gstr-devel and gstr-static. No unusual Requires. [x]: Package functions as described. VERIFIED: Tests pass in %check section. Library provides UTF-8 grapheme string operations as documented. [x]: Latest version is packaged. VERIFIED: 2.0.2 is the latest release on GitHub. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. VERIFIED: Uses upstream LICENSE file directly. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. NOT APPLICABLE: Upstream does not publish GPG signatures for releases. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. VERIFIED: noarch package, architecture-independent. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. VERIFIED: %check runs test_gstr which passes. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. VERIFIED: install -p flag used in %install section. [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]: 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: All rpmlint "errors" are spelling complaints about function names (gstrlen, gstrcmp, grapheme, etc.) which are intentional technical terms, not actual spelling mistakes. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gstr-devel-2.0.2-1.fc44.noarch.rpm gstr-2.0.2-1.fc44.src.rpm All 52 rpmlint "spelling errors" are function names (gstrlen, gstrcmp, gstrcat, utf8_cpwidth, etc.) and technical terms (grapheme). These are intentional API names, not spelling mistakes. No actual issues found. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/edwardedmonds/gstr/archive/v2.0.2/gstr-2.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c3312dcc4a5b5c785c09985fc9e19d6311bdc7ec8903fe0216b062f356204754 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c3312dcc4a5b5c785c09985fc9e19d6311bdc7ec8903fe0216b062f356204754 Requires -------- gstr-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (no runtime requires - header-only library) Provides -------- gstr-devel: gstr-devel gstr-static Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Reproducible: Always
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/edwardjedmonds/gstr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10050975-gstr/gstr-2.0.2-1.fc44.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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.
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/edwardjedmonds/gstr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10051096-gstr/gstr-2.0.2-1.fc44.src.rpm Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/edwardjedmonds/gstr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10051096-gstr/gstr.spec
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10051484 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432458-gstr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10051484-gstr/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.
The spelling errors are API function names (e.g., gstrlen mirrors strlen) and the package builds successfully in Copr on all enabled chroots.
> BuildArch: noarch > BuildRequires: gcc You should remove the "BuildArch: noarch" bit here and move it to be a property of the devel sub-package. The way it is now, koji (the Fedora build system) will see that the package is noarch, pick a random builder of a random architecture, and build it there. This means that tests will be ran only on a single architecture. If you keep the main package archful and mark the devel sub-package as noarch, then koji will build it (and hence, test it) on all architectures. This will still produce only a single devel.noarch package. > %description > ... > %description devel Since the main package is empty, building this spec will produce only the devel subpackage. As such, you may consider moving the longer and more descriptive description to the devel subpackage. > %check > gcc -Wall -Wextra -I include -o test_gstr test/test_gstr.c You should add %{optflags} (or ${CFLAGS}) to the invocation to ensure that Fedora's compiler flags are used when building the test suite. Alternatively, since the upstream repo contains a Makefile, you could add "BuildRequires: make" and just run "%make_build test" here.
Thank you for the review, Artur. I addressed your suggestions in 2.0.2-3: - Moved BuildArch: noarch from the main package to %package devel so koji will build and test on all architectures - Added %global debug_package %{nil} since the header-only library produces no compiled binaries (without this, the build fails on empty debugsourcefiles.list) - Moved the longer description with the full function listing to %description devel - Added %{optflags} to the gcc invocation in %check Updated spec and SRPM on Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10116374 — builds and tests pass on all chroots.
Checking in on the status of this - is there anything else I need to do?