https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Bug ID: 2264587 Summary: Review Request: lexertl17 - The Modular Lexical Analyser Generator 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/lexertl17.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/lexertl17-0.1.0%5E20240216git653e353-1.fc39.s...
Description:
lexertl is a header-only library for writing lexical analyzers. With lexertl you can:
- Build lexical analyzers at runtime - Scan Unicode and ASCII input - Scan from files or memory - Generate C++ code or even write your own code generator
Fedora Account System Username: music
This is a header-only package. It is a new C++17 version of the existing https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lexertl14. Currently, the two devel packages will conflict under https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_compat... (and the corresponding Conflicts will be added to lexertl14 when lexertl17 is imported), but in the long term lexertl14 will be retired once MorphIO (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/morphio, https://github.com/BlueBrain/MorphIO) uses C++17 and lexertl17.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2264588
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264588 [Bug 2264588] Review Request: parsertl17 - The Modular Parser Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/BenHanso | |n/lexertl17
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7027756 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Upstream has accepted my request to start tagging releases, and we are discussing alignment of the release tag with the version configured in CMakeLists.txt.
https://github.com/BenHanson/gram_grep/issues/17#issuecomment-1949916154
Expect an updated submission soon.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20240218/lexertl17.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20240218/lexertl17-2024.02.17-1.fc39.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2017467 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2017467&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7027756 to 7031287
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7031287 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/gram_grep/build/7031482/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2264773
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264773 [Bug 2264773] Review Request: gram_grep - Search text using a grammar, lexer, or straight regex
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "Boost Software License 1.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 93 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2264587-lexertl17/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /home/fedora/2264587-lexertl17/upstream- unpacked/Source0/lexertl17-2024.02.17/include [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. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 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 1672 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: lexertl17-devel-2024.02.17-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm lexertl17-2024.02.17-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_t_zzdgi')] checks: 32, packages: 2
lexertl17-devel.aarch64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1
lexertl17-devel.aarch64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BenHanson/lexertl17/archive/2024.02.17/lexertl17-2024.02.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8e0836952ca08598a3a83b8f8ca1ca767bab2c82eaeb3989ff7c40d860c5694f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8e0836952ca08598a3a83b8f8ca1ca767bab2c82eaeb3989ff7c40d860c5694f
Requires -------- lexertl17-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(aarch-64)
Provides -------- lexertl17-devel: cmake(lexertl) lexertl17-devel lexertl17-devel(aarch-64) lexertl17-static
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2264587 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Python, PHP, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comment: a) Maybe examples should be packaged as documentation? b) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114289675 c) Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #7)
Comment: a) Maybe examples should be packaged as documentation?
Sure, I might as well do this. Thanks for the suggestion.
b) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114289675 c) Approved.
Thank you for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lexertl17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-5e1f22f7db (lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5e1f22f7db
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-03-01 16:02:16
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-5e1f22f7db (lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc40 and lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc39 and lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121 (lexertl14-0.1.0-24.20240301git3097246.el9 and lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-2.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016 (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc38 and lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-2.fc38) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121 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-2024-4dfdba8121
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=2264587
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a 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-2024-f4d0b7d25a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a
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=2264587
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1
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=2264587
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016 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-2024-f8a0cba016 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016
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=2264587
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1
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=2264587
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121 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-2024-4dfdba8121
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=2264587
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016 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-2024-f8a0cba016 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016
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=2264587
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a 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-2024-f4d0b7d25a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a
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=2264587
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-4dfdba8121 (lexertl14-0.1.0-25.20240301git3097246.el9, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-2.el9, and 2 more) 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=2264587
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f4d0b7d25a (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc39, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc39, and 2 more) 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=2264587
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-f8a0cba016 (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc38, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-2.fc38, and 2 more) 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=2264587
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-4e1a4695e1 (lexertl14-0.1.0^20240301git3097246-1.fc40, lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-1.fc40, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-6767c7d075 (lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-3.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-6767c7d075
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264587
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-6767c7d075 (lexertl17-2024.02.17^20240301gitfc939f3-3.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com