https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254887
Bug ID: 2254887 Summary: Review Request: fplus - Functional Programming Library for C++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: trix@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/fplus.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/fplus-0.2.20-1.fc40.src.rpm
FunctionalPlus is a small header-only library supporting you in reducing code noise and in dealing with only one single level of abstraction at a time. By increasing brevity and maintainability of your code it can improve productivity (and fun!) in the long run. It pursues these goals by providing pure and easy-to-use functions that free you from implementing commonly used flows of control over and over again.
fplus is needed to package frugally-deep https://github.com/Dobiasd/frugally-deep here https://github.com/Dobiasd/frugally-deep/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L34
And frugally-deep is needed to package the ROCm AI package MIOpen Which is needed to get get python-torch using ROCm.
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254887
Tom Rix trix@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1011110 (ML-SIG) Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |rocm-packagers-sig@lists.fe | |doraproject.org
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011110 [Bug 1011110] Machine Learning SIG - review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254887
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/Dobiasd/ | |FunctionalPlus
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6765364 (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=2254887
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexjnewt@fastmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |alexjnewt@fastmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Looks good, but two should fix issues: -rpmlint complains that the summary ends with a dot -latest is not packaged (0.2.22)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254887
--- Comment #3 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/fplus.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/fplus-0.2.22-1.fc40.src.rpm
Updated for the requested changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254887
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Looks good, approved.
Side note:
Depends on downloading and being in a git repo
Well if I understood the comment correctly, you can just build require git and do a git init in tree. I didn't really look into it, perhaps you meant it's downloading via git from the internet? Either way, it's your judgement here (SHOULD item, not a MUST)
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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: %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: /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/fplus/upstream- unpacked/Source0/FunctionalPlus-0.2.22/include_all_in_one/include, /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/fplus/upstream- unpacked/Source0/FunctionalPlus-0.2.22/include
Not sure what that is all about :) I didn't note any bundled code after looking into it
[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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 24771 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254887
--- 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/fplus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254887
Tom Rix trix@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-01-14 16:38:57
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com