Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/toml-f/toml-f.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/toml-f/toml-f-0.5.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: A TOML parser implementation for data serialization and deserialization in Fortran. Fedora Account System Username: lecris
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/toml-f/toml-f.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/toml-f/toml-f-0.5.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Fixed the pkgconfig file
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/toml-f/toml-f.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/toml-f/toml-f-0.5.2-1.fc45.src.rpm soversion glob was incorrect
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666289 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494935-toml-f/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666289-toml-f/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666294 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494935-toml-f/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666294-toml-f/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666295 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494935-toml-f/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666295-toml-f/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10767827 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494935-toml-f/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10767827-toml-f/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
test-drive-0.6.1-1.fc45 should have landed now in the buildroot [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10768244 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494935-toml-f/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10768244-toml-f/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
> test-drive-0.6.1-1.fc45 should have landed now in the buildroot Yes, but copr does not use the buildroot. You can run the build locally instead and run fedora-review on those. Or just wait for the next compose tomorrow
Yeah, let's wait for the compose; feel free to run the recompile
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10770160 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2494935-toml-f/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10770160-toml-f/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ This is a non-issue; the package is Fortran and BRs gcc-gfortran. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 217 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/toml-f/licensecheck.txt Despite the lack of license header, README states TOML-Fortran is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the [Apache License, Version 2.0](LICENSE-Apache) or [MIT license](LICENSE-MIT) at your opinion. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules [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. [-]: 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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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 12578 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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: [-]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in toml-f- devel Fix this before import [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: toml-f-0.5.2-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm toml-f-devel-0.5.2-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm toml-f-0.5.2-1.fc45.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/tmpsa5j5_d7')] checks: 32, packages: 3 toml-f-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 22 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: toml-f-debuginfo-0.5.2-1.fc45.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/tmpshp4h86m')] 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) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "toml-f-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "toml-f-devel". ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "toml-f". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/toml-f/toml-f/archive/v0.5.2/toml-f-0.5.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 095814952e76283a689ea957aa5bd7fc748cbe24d4ffb3a34f4f564b792dd33c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 095814952e76283a689ea957aa5bd7fc748cbe24d4ffb3a34f4f564b792dd33c Requires -------- toml-f (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) toml-f-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libtoml-f.so.0()(64bit) toml-f Provides -------- toml-f: libtoml-f.so.0()(64bit) toml-f toml-f(x86-64) toml-f-devel: cmake(toml-f) pkgconfig(toml-f) toml-f-devel toml-f-devel(x86-64) Package APPROVED by jussilehtola. Fix the requires in the devel package before package import to Fedora.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/toml-f Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
Thank you for the review, Susi
FEDORA-2026-a2c6cbd198 (toml-f-0.5.2-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a2c6cbd198
You're welcome - I need this stack for dftd4 anyways..
FEDORA-2026-a2c6cbd198 (toml-f-0.5.2-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Can you please build this for F44 as well?
See the bug dependency graph ot the last attempt: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3067584 Blocked by test-drive version at least
I've updated test-drive in F44 and issued a buildroot override
> issued a buildroot override Ouch, why though. Simply building it in a side-tag would have been easy enough to handle
Oh right; I can undo that. Still used to the infrastructure as it was back in the day ;)
I'll let you handle the side-tag
Yes, if you can undo the override, I can handle it more easily with the side-tag
It is done. The whole psi4 tree (test-drive, mctc-lib, mstore, dftd4, psi4) needs to be rebuilt and shipped, since Psi4 hasn't been working since F42.... and scitech_sig should now have commit access to all of these packages.
`multicharge` should have been in the list also. Got up to dftd4 so far
Cheers, I added scitech_sig to multicharge as well.
Closer, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148513703, stuck at python-qcelemental. The sidetag is f44-build-side-145301 if you want to take over from here