[Bug 2332842] New: Review Request: cnmatrix - A consistent C interface to a few matrix backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
Bug ID: 2332842 Summary: Review Request: cnmatrix - A consistent C interface to a few matrix backends Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativo17@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/cnmatrix.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/cnmatrix-0.0%5e20220215git5936c62-1... Description: This library provides a consistent C interface to a few matrix backends.
The interface itself is a little more sane than raw lapack / blas calls, and is meant to be reasonably performant for medium to large matrices. It should also be cross platform and work reasonably well on embedded low latency systems; as it consistently tries to avoid heap allocations. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/cntools/ | |cnmatrix
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8403502 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Package has .a files: cnmatrix-devel. Does not provide -static: cnmatrix-devel. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jonathansteffan@gmail.com CC| |jonathansteffan@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: cnmatrix-devel. Does not provide -static: cnmatrix-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
===== 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]: 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. [!]: 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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/cnmatrix/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 685 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: cnmatrix-devel-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc42.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/tmp4l0k767f')] checks: 32, packages: 2
cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libcnmatrix.a cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('lapack', '%description -l en_US lapack -> la pack, la-pack, lack') cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('blas', '%description -l en_US blas -> albs, slab, blase') cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('performant', '%description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance') ========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s ==========
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 1
cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libcnmatrix.a 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cntools/cnmatrix/archive/5936c62511305227fbd59b2d5a43aaf8... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e4f1c776c5fbf04374727b6b1c6c32f7226db35fde480468f857df5b6d543f81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4f1c776c5fbf04374727b6b1c6c32f7226db35fde480468f857df5b6d543f81
Requires -------- cnmatrix-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config
Provides -------- cnmatrix-devel: cnmatrix-devel cnmatrix-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(cnmatrix)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, R, fonts, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: cnmatrix-devel. Does not provide -static: cnmatrix-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-...
cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libcnmatrix.a
We should either delete this file or put it in a -static subpackage if it's required, per the referenced guidelines.
[!]: 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". 19 files have unknown license.
cmake/FindEigen3.cmake is BSD-2-Clause
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
32bit fails due to static lib handling:
mv: '/builddir/build/BUILD/cnmatrix-0.0_20220215git5936c62-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/libcnmatrix.a' and '/builddir/build/BUILD/cnmatrix-0.0_20220215git5936c62-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/libcnmatrix.a' are the same file
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
We should run the tests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/cnmatrix.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/cnmatrix-0.0%5e20220215git5936c62-1...
- Adjust license. - Exclude libcnmatrix.a from packaging (might adjust if we need it down the line later). - Adjusted library installation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2063750 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2063750&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8403502 to 8444033
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8444033 (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=2332842
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 19 files have unknown license. [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. [-]: 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 685 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: cnmatrix-devel-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc42.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/tmpd8dutjms')] checks: 32, packages: 2
cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('lapack', '%description -l en_US lapack -> la pack, la-pack, lack') cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('blas', '%description -l en_US blas -> albs, slab, blase') cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('performant', '%description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('lapack', '%description -l en_US lapack -> la pack, la-pack, lack') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('blas', '%description -l en_US blas -> albs, slab, blase') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('performant', '%description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance') ========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.2 s ==========
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 1
cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('lapack', '%description -l en_US lapack -> la pack, la-pack, lack') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('blas', '%description -l en_US blas -> albs, slab, blase') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('performant', '%description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cntools/cnmatrix/archive/5936c62511305227fbd59b2d5a43aaf8... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e4f1c776c5fbf04374727b6b1c6c32f7226db35fde480468f857df5b6d543f81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4f1c776c5fbf04374727b6b1c6c32f7226db35fde480468f857df5b6d543f81
Requires -------- cnmatrix-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconf-pkg-config
Provides -------- cnmatrix-devel: cnmatrix-devel cnmatrix-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(cnmatrix)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Regarding the -static subpackage... I think we either want to delete/not build static or include it via a -static subpackage. I don't know the right thing to do here.
# Exclude for now: %exclude %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- We need to either:
1) Disable building the static lib 2) Delete the lib in %install
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #10 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #9)
We need to either:
- Disable building the static lib
- Delete the lib in %install
I don't understand why this bothers you, option 2 is exactly the same thing as using %exclude in the files section. Anyway, I've removed it in the %install section so we don't need to patch it to avoid building the library:
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/cnmatrix.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/cnmatrix-0.0%5e20220215git5936c62-1...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2063937 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2063937&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8444033 to 8450577
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8450577 (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=2332842
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- %exclude should be used for subpackage relocation, is what I found out in the fedora-devel channel.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/cnmatrix/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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 685 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: cnmatrix-devel-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc42.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/tmpzr4zd0b9')] checks: 32, packages: 2
cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('lapack', '%description -l en_US lapack -> la pack, la-pack, lack') cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('blas', '%description -l en_US blas -> albs, slab, blase') cnmatrix.src: E: spelling-error ('performant', '%description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('lapack', '%description -l en_US lapack -> la pack, la-pack, lack') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('blas', '%description -l en_US blas -> albs, slab, blase') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('performant', '%description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 1
cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('lapack', '%description -l en_US lapack -> la pack, la-pack, lack') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('blas', '%description -l en_US blas -> albs, slab, blase') cnmatrix-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('performant', '%description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cntools/cnmatrix/archive/5936c62511305227fbd59b2d5a43aaf8... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e4f1c776c5fbf04374727b6b1c6c32f7226db35fde480468f857df5b6d543f81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4f1c776c5fbf04374727b6b1c6c32f7226db35fde480468f857df5b6d543f81
Requires -------- cnmatrix-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconf-pkg-config
Provides -------- cnmatrix-devel: cnmatrix-devel cnmatrix-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(cnmatrix)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc41.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, fonts, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- APPROVED
Thanks for iterating on this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cnmatrix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #17 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Added xr-sig as admins.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217 (cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc40, sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc40, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47 (cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-1.fc41, sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc41, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47
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=2332842
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217 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-bf83c09217 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217
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=2332842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-01-05 01:28:12
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-bf83c09217 (cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-2.fc40, sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.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=2332842
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1d42e73a47 (cnmatrix-0.0^20220215git5936c62-2.fc41, sciplot0.2-0.2.2-1.fc41, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com