Spec URL: --------- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054743-bstring/bstring.spec SRPM URL: --------- https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054743-bstring/bstring-1.0.3-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: ------------ The bstring library provides a string abstraction data type for the C language as a memory safe alternative to null terminated buffers. This is a fork of Paul Hsieh's Better String Library. The following features (or mis-features, depending on your point of view) are included: - Build system (Meson+Ninja) - Updated test suite based on Check - Add memory profiling with Valgrind to the workflow - Add continuous integration via GitHub Actions - Remove C++ wrapper code, returning this to a pure C library - Documentation generation with Doxygen - Other various code quality and reliability improvements Currently this fork should be binary-compatible with the original code. The only source incompatibility is the removal of the const_bstring type. Just use const bstring instead. Fedora Account System Username: ------------------------------- kni Background: ----------- The Netatalk package previously bundled this library. Upstream has now been made bstring an external dependency. Hence the new package review.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10054760 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432587-bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054760-bstring/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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/bstring/2432587-bstring/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/bstring [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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 5093 bytes in 2 files. [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 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: bstring-1.0.3-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm bstring-devel-1.0.3-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm bstring-doc-1.0.3-1.fc44.noarch.rpm bstring-1.0.3-1.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/tmp1_5i_2rv')] checks: 32, packages: 4 bstring.src: E: spelling-error ('mis', '%description -l en_US mis -> sim, mus, mos') bstring.src: E: spelling-error ('const', '%description -l en_US const -> cons, cont, cost') bstring.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mis', '%description -l en_US mis -> sim, mus, mos') bstring.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('const', '%description -l en_US const -> cons, cont, cost') bstring-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 26 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: bstring-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.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/tmp4rsomfbe')] 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: 2.8.0 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 bstring.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mis', '%description -l en_US mis -> sim, mus, mos') bstring.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('const', '%description -l en_US const -> cons, cont, cost') bstring-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 28 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/releases/download/v1.0.3/bstring-1.0.3.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 90db08fd33e9494aea3f00f9b71cdcf3114c65457ee35558e8274df6ebac43f3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90db08fd33e9494aea3f00f9b71cdcf3114c65457ee35558e8274df6ebac43f3 Requires -------- bstring (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) bstring-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config bstring(x86-64) libbstring.so.1()(64bit) bstring-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- bstring: bstring bstring(x86-64) libbstring.so.1()(64bit) bstring-devel: bstring-devel bstring-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(bstring) bstring-doc: bstring-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2432587 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Python, Java, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) License looks like it should be BSD-3-Clause AND (BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0-only) see https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/bstring/bstraux.c#L31 https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/bstring/bstraux.h#L31 https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/bstring/bstrlib.c#L31 https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/bstring/bstrlib.h#L31 https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/doc/introduction.md#license Perhaps check with upstream as the GPL-2.0 license is not included b) Docbook documentation can be generated by changing https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/doc/Doxyfile.in#L2293 to GENERATE_DOCBOOK = YES and HTML documentation can be disabled by changing https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/doc/Doxyfile.in#L2293 to GENERATE_HTML = NO Docbook can be viewed using Yelp https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/yelp/ Resulting files can be put in %dir %{_datadir}/help/en %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/bstring This might be cleaner to package than html, but not blocking. If choose to continue with html, make sure /usr/share/doc/bstring is owned.
Thanks for the feedback. I changed the license to "BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0-only" based on feedback from upstream here: https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/issues/116#issuecomment-3797097138 Let me know if you agree. I like your idea about switching from html -> docbook. I spent far more time futzing with this than I'd like to admit, but I am sitting inside after an epic snowstorm ...so I've got the time. Updated Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056597-bstring/bstring.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056597-bstring/bstring-1.0.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2123735 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10054760 to 10056606
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10056606 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432587-bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056606-bstring/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.
Aw hang on. Doc files were being installed into /usr/share/help/en/bstring/html rather than /usr/share/help/en/bstring. This has been fixed. Updated Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056651-bstring/bstring.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056651-bstring/bstring-1.0.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2123747 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10056606 to 10056653
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10056653 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432587-bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056653-bstring/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.
Seems good. A couple suggestions: a) Please change %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.* to %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.1{,.*} sonames should not be globbed. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files b) Consider also packaging the GPL-2 license text: https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/pull/120 see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text c) Approved. Please fix (a) before import. Please fix (b), as a choice of licenses are allowed, will not block on GPL-2-only as the BSD-3-Clause could be the only one that is used in Fedora d) Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2432752 would be appreciated if time allows.
Updated Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10062273-bstring/bstring.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/bstring/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10062273-bstring/bstring-1.0.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bstring
FEDORA-2026-b7bee5dbcb (bstring-1.0.3-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b7bee5dbcb
FEDORA-2026-b7bee5dbcb has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-b7bee5dbcb` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b7bee5dbcb See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-b7bee5dbcb (bstring-1.0.3-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.