Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/libversion-3.0.4-1/libversion.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/libversion-3.0.4-1/libversion-3.0.4-1.fc44.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148868756 Description: libversion is an advanced version string comparison library, capable of comparing different formats of version strings. It is the library powering the Repology project. FAS username: suve
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10840820 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2512899-libversion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10840820-libversion/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.
There is a pre-built binary in `exttests/cmake-shared/1/test`; it doesn't appear referenced in `CMakeLists.txt`, so it may be an accident.
Hi :) this is an informal review as I'm not a packager yet. I ran fedora-review, the package builds, the upstream test passes (1/1) and the basic function of the tool works (comparing versions). Issues (MUST): 1. -devel uses %{?isa} instead of %{?_isa}: Requires: %{name}%{?isa} = %{version}-%{release} %{?isa} isn't defined, so the built RPM requires plain "libversion = 3.0.4-1.fc46" without the arch. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package -tools has the same typo. 2. exttests/cmake-shared/1/test is a prebuilt binary and should be removed in %prep, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries SHOULD items: 3. The library doesn't use versioned symbols. 4. No man pages for version_compare and version_sort (by rpmlint). Everything else looks good to my beginner eyes :)
Full fedora-review template for my informal review in comment 3: Package Review ============== Issues: ======= 1. -devel uses %{?isa} instead of %{?_isa} ("Requires: %{name}%{?isa} = %{version}-%{release}"). %{?isa} isn't defined, so the built RPM requires plain "libversion = 3.0.4-1.fc46" without the arch. -tools has the same typo. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package 2. exttests/cmake-shared/1/test is a prebuilt binary and should be removed in %prep, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries 3. SHOULD: The library doesn't use versioned symbols. 4. SHOULD: No man pages for version_compare and version_sort (by rpmlint). 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 23 files have unknown 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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Note: Prebuilt binary exttests/cmake-shared/1/test, see issue 2. [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: See issue 1. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 12750 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Note: See issues. [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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Note: See issue 1. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libversion-devel , libversion-tools Note: Versioned, but without arch, see issue 1. [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]: 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: libversion-3.0.4-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm libversion-devel-3.0.4-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm libversion-tools-3.0.4-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm libversion-3.0.4-1.fc46.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/tmp0y2h6xc0')] checks: 32, packages: 4 libversion-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary version_compare libversion-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary version_sort 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 27 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libversion-debuginfo-3.0.4-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm libversion-tools-debuginfo-3.0.4-1.fc46.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/tmp1xmckqra')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 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: 33, packages: 5 libversion-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary version_compare libversion-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary version_sort 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 42 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/repology/libversion/archive/refs/tags/3.0.4/libversion-3.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48c2a4a98b6f220dedd535979f1e9ab83f9bf869e06c0f5e7bb1be6d2e662fee CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48c2a4a98b6f220dedd535979f1e9ab83f9bf869e06c0f5e7bb1be6d2e662fee Requires -------- libversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libversion-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libversion libversion.so.1()(64bit) libversion-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libversion libversion.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libversion: libversion libversion(x86-64) libversion.so.1()(64bit) libversion-devel: cmake(libversion) libversion-devel libversion-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libversion) libversion-tools: libversion-tools libversion-tools(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.12.0 (a08f0fc) last change: 2026-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2512899 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True --define '_smp_ncpus_max 4' Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Python, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, UNRETIREMENT