https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
Bug ID: 2122170 Summary: Review Request: easyloggingpp - C++ logging library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/easyloggingpp.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/easyloggingpp-9.97.0%5Egit20210202-1.fc36.src...
Description:
Easylogging++ is an efficient logging library for C++ applications. It is extremely powerful, highly extendable and configurable to a user’s requirements. It provides the ability to write your own sinks (via featured referred as LogDispatchCallback). This library is currently used by hundreds of open-source projects on github and other open-source source control management sites.
Fedora Account System Username: music
F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91399535 F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91399536 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91399538 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91399540
This is intended for unbundling from python-steps, and perhaps from et and corectrl.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |1276941 (fedora-neuro)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/API/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp- doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/MinGW/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/OpenGL/Cube/imageloader.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/OpenGL/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/basic/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/basic/mythread.h easyloggingpp- doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/fast- dictionary/ui_mainwindow.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file-splitter-joiner/about.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file- splitter-joiner/addsplittedfiledialog.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file-splitter- joiner/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file-splitter-joiner/joinercore.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file- splitter-joiner/joinerwidget.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file-splitter-joiner/mainwindow.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file- splitter-joiner/partprocessor.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file-splitter- joiner/splitablefiledelegate.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file-splitter- joiner/splittercore.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/file-splitter- joiner/splitterwidget.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/shared-lib/myapp/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/Qt/shared- lib/mylib/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/STL/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp- doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/STL/shared-static- libs/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/STL/shared-static- libs/lib/include/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc :
/usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/VC++/VCPP2015_Win32/VCPP2015_Win32/easylo gging++.h easyloggingpp-doc :
/usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/VC++/VCPP2015_Win32_Multithreaded/VCPP201 5_Win32/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/async/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp- doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/async/mymath.h easyloggingpp- doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/boost/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/gtkmm/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp- doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/gtkmm/hello_gtkmm/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/gtkmm/hello_gtkmm/window.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/send-to- network/easylogging++.h easyloggingpp-doc : /usr/share/doc/easyloggingpp/samples/wxWidgets/easylogging++.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 333 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/easyloggingpp/2122170-easyloggingpp/licensecheck.txt [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 without FPC exception. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in easyloggingpp-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/amrayn/easyloggingpp/archive/8489989bb26c6371df103f6cbced... e1bc3c2f/easyloggingpp-8489989bb26c6371df103f6cbced3fbee1bc3c2f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2bc421cd7c97aadeccc08ef6da0e1960c4da7d0798 32cfc6a2270186c51c2f88 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2bc421cd7c97aadeccc08ef6da0e1960c4da7d0798 32cfc6a2270186c51c2f88
Requires -------- easyloggingpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config
easyloggingpp-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): easyloggingpp-devel
Provides -------- easyloggingpp-devel: easyloggingpp-devel easyloggingpp-static pkgconfig(easyloggingpp)
easyloggingpp-doc: easyloggingpp-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2122170 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Python, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Header files are ok in documentation as these are examples b) Why not package a tagged release version rather than a commit? The last release was only a few months before the last commit. c) BSD 3 clause is for a file that is not packaged.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review.
a) Header files are ok in documentation as these are examples
I agree.
b) Why not package a tagged release version rather than a commit? The last release was only a few months before the last commit.
I commented in lines 1-2 of the spec file:
# We use a git snapshot because the release tag does not contain the # CHANGELOG.md and README.md updates for the release.
The commits from the release tag to the selected commit only include irrelevant updates to FUNDING.yml and the CHANGELOG.md and README.md entries for the release I am packaging. Basically, upstream just tagged the release too soon.
c) BSD 3 clause is for a file that is not packaged.
I agree, thus the License of simply “MIT”.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- If you are formally reviewing the package, in addition to making yourself the assignee, please also set the status to “ASSIGNED” and the fedora-review flag to “?”. Then, when you are satisfied, set the fedora-review flag to “+” and leave the status as “ASSIGNED”. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review! Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47232
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/easyloggingpp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d93a65507d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d93a65507d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-09-02 17:27:49
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d93a65507d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-dfb0314351 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dfb0314351
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-588a605741 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-588a605741
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-1817fae14b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1817fae14b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-db97b93907 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-db97b93907
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-dfb0314351 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-dfb0314351 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dfb0314351
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-588a605741 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-588a605741 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-588a605741
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-1817fae14b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-1817fae14b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1817fae14b
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-db97b93907 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-2022-db97b93907
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-dfb0314351 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-db97b93907 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-588a605741 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-1817fae14b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122170
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-e5e84f443a (easyloggingpp-9.97.1-6.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-e5e84f443a
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com