[Bug 2303089] New: Review Request: ada-url - WHATWG-compliant and fast URL parser written in modern C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Bug ID: 2303089 Summary: Review Request: ada-url - WHATWG-compliant and fast URL parser written in modern C++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@mochaa.ws QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mochaa/ada-url/srpm-build... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mochaa/ada-url/srpm-build...
Description: Ada is a fast and spec-compliant URL parser written in C++. Specification for URL parser can be found from the WHATWG website.
The Ada library passes the full range of tests from the specification, across a wide range of platforms. It fully supports the relevant Unicode Technical Standard.
Fedora Account System Username: mochaa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Zephyr Lykos fedora@mochaa.ws changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Link ID| |Fedora Pagure | |mochaa-rpms/ada-url
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Zephyr Lykos fedora@mochaa.ws changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Fedora Package Sources | |nodejs22/blob/rawhide/f/nod | |ejs22.spec#_330
--- Comment #1 from Zephyr Lykos fedora@mochaa.ws --- This package could also unbundle the ones in nodejs -- see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs22/blob/rawhide/f/nodejs22.spec#_330
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Zephyr Lykos fedora@mochaa.ws changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jstanek@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(jstanek@redhat.co | |m)
--- Comment #2 from Zephyr Lykos fedora@mochaa.ws --- requesting comment from @jstanek@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
--- Comment #3 from Zephyr Lykos fedora@mochaa.ws --- Tests needs to be disabled for f39 and below, since test cases requires newer simdjson.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
--- Comment #4 from Jan Staněk jstanek@redhat.com --- I'm aware of this request, but currently I have my hands full with other $work. It will take a while before I can take a look.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vascom2@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |vascom2@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mochaa/ada-url/fedora-raw... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mochaa/ada-url/fedora-raw...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ needinfo+ |needinfo?(jstanek@redhat.co | |m) |
--- Comment #6 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Approved.
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]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 165 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2303089-ada- url/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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 18060 bytes in 2 files. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: ada-url-2.9.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ada-url-tools-2.9.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ada-url-devel-2.9.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ada-url-doc-2.9.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm ada-url-2.9.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp0tx4okuz')] checks: 32, packages: 5
ada-url.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 1000-Remove-cmake-CPM.patch ada-url-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary adaparse ada-url-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ada-url-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation ada-url-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/ada-url-doc/html/search/defines_0.js /usr/share/doc/ada-url-doc/html/search/all_0.js ada-url-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/ada-url-doc/html/search/functions_14.js /usr/share/doc/ada-url-doc/html/search/all_17.js ada-url-doc.noarch: E: description-line-too-long The ada-url-doc package contains developer documentation for the ada-url package. 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 32 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ada-url/ada/archive/v2.9.0/ada-2.9.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b992f0ce9134cb4eafb74b164d2ce2cb3af1900902162713b0e0c5ab0b6acd8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b992f0ce9134cb4eafb74b164d2ce2cb3af1900902162713b0e0c5ab0b6acd8
Requires -------- ada-url (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ada-url-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ada-url(x86-64) libada.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfmt.so.11()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ada-url-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ada-url(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libada.so.2()(64bit)
ada-url-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- ada-url: ada-url ada-url(x86-64) libada.so.2()(64bit)
ada-url-tools: ada-url-tools ada-url-tools(x86-64)
ada-url-devel: ada-url-devel ada-url-devel(x86-64) cmake(ada)
ada-url-doc: ada-url-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2303089 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, fonts, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
--- Comment #7 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Please fix ada-url-doc.noarch: E: description-line-too-long The ada-url-doc package contains developer documentation for the ada-url package.
And update to latest version if needed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ada-url
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303089
Zephyr Lykos fedora@mochaa.ws changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |COMPLETED Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-11-05 16:22:45
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com