[Bug 2245582] New: Review Request: ls-qpack - QPACK compression library for use with HTTP/3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
Bug ID: 2245582 Summary: Review Request: ls-qpack - QPACK compression library for use with HTTP/3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lsqpack/fedora-raw... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lsqpack/fedora-raw...
description: ls-qpack is a full-featured, tested, and fast QPACK library. The QPACK encoder produces excellent compression results based on an innovative mnemonic technique. It boasts the fastest Huffman encoder and decoder.
The library is production quality. It is used in OpenLiteSpeed, LiteSpeed Web Server, and LiteSpeed Web ADC.
The library is robust: * The encoder does not assume anything about usual HTTP headers such as Server or User-Agent. Instead, it uses its mnemonic compression technique to achieve good compression results for any input. * The decoder uses modulo arithmetic to track dynamic table insertions. This is in contrast to all other QPACK implementations, which use an integer counter, meaning that at some point, the decoder will break. * The decoder processes input in streaming fashion. The caller does not have to buffer the contents of HTTP/3 HEADERS frame. Instead, the decoder can be supplied input byte-by-byte.
fas: fed500
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107963504
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6557872 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |trpost@rocketmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |trpost@rocketmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not install properly: pkgconfig(xxhash) is not provided
- Remove bundled deps/xxhash files
- See unstripped-binary-or-object warnings probably caused by non-executable-in-bin of some binary files.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3428 bytes in 1 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [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.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 5.2 starting (python version = 3.11.6, NVR = mock-5.2-1.fc38), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --resultdir=/home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results install /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results/ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results/ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results/ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/results/ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 5.2 INFO: Mock Version: 5.2 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M a3e53506b56a401997481401794b8fca -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.0f1qfb01:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf-3 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 40 --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmppu988ezh')] checks: 31, packages: 5
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/encode-int ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/fuzz-decode ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/interop-decode ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/interop-encode ls-qpack.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/encode-int 644 ls-qpack.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/fuzz-decode 644 ls-qpack.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/interop-decode 644 ls-qpack.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/interop-encode 644 ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary =========================================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ============================================================================
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/litespeedtech/ls-qpack/archive/v2.5.3/ls-qpack-2.5.3.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 075a05efee27961eac5ac92a12a6e28a61bcd6c122a0276938ef993338577337 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 075a05efee27961eac5ac92a12a6e28a61bcd6c122a0276938ef993338577337
Requires -------- ls-qpack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libxxhash.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ls-qpack-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit) ls-qpack(x86-64) pkgconfig(xxhash)
ls-qpack-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ls-qpack-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- ls-qpack: libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit) ls-qpack ls-qpack(x86-64)
ls-qpack-devel: ls-qpack-devel ls-qpack-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ls-qpack)
ls-qpack-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libls-qpack.so.2.5.3-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) ls-qpack-debuginfo ls-qpack-debuginfo(x86-64)
ls-qpack-debugsource: ls-qpack-debugsource ls-qpack-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 2245582 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Python, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, R, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Updated: spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lsqpack/fedora-raw... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lsqpack/fedora-raw...
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108227070
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com --- Approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
- Use arched dependencies: Requires: xxhash-devel%{?_isa}
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/2245582-ls-qpack/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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3428 bytes in 1 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ls-qpack-devel-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ls-qpack-debugsource-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ls-qpack-2.5.3-1.fc40.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpyjdxlsy8')] checks: 31, packages: 5
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary encode-int ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fuzz-decode ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interop-decode ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interop-encode ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary ============================================================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ============================================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ls-qpack-debuginfo-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp__txufz1')] checks: 31, packages: 1
============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 4
ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/fuzz-decode /lib64/libm.so.6 ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/interop-decode /lib64/libm.so.6 ls-qpack.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/interop-encode /lib64/libm.so.6 ls-qpack.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libls-qpack.so.2.5.3 roundf (/usr/lib64/libls-qpack.so.2.5.3) ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary encode-int ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fuzz-decode ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interop-decode ls-qpack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary interop-encode ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ls-qpack-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/litespeedtech/ls-qpack/archive/v2.5.3/ls-qpack-2.5.3.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 075a05efee27961eac5ac92a12a6e28a61bcd6c122a0276938ef993338577337 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 075a05efee27961eac5ac92a12a6e28a61bcd6c122a0276938ef993338577337
Requires -------- ls-qpack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libxxhash.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ls-qpack-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit) ls-qpack(x86-64) pkgconfig(libxxhash) xxhash-devel
ls-qpack-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ls-qpack-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- ls-qpack: libls-qpack.so.2()(64bit) ls-qpack ls-qpack(x86-64)
ls-qpack-devel: ls-qpack-devel ls-qpack-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ls-qpack)
ls-qpack-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libls-qpack.so.2.5.3-2.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) ls-qpack-debuginfo ls-qpack-debuginfo(x86-64)
ls-qpack-debugsource: ls-qpack-debugsource ls-qpack-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 2245582 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ls-qpack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-918f356840 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-918f356840
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385 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-2023-d7fd103385 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385
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=2245582
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-918f356840 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-918f356840 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-918f356840
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=2245582
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45
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=2245582
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-11-09 01:15:40
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-d7fd103385 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=2245582
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-91a26a0b45 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245582
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-918f356840 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com