https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909
Bug ID: 2245909 Summary: Review Request: boxed-cpp - Boxing primitive types in C++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: topazus@outlook.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxed-cpp.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxed-cpp-1.0.1-1.20231023git783cb74.f...
Fedora Account System Username: topazus Description: Boxing primitive types in C++
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxed-cpp.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxed-cpp-1.0.1-1.20231023git783cb74.f...
Fedora Account System Username: topazus Description: Boxing primitive types in C++
It is a new dependency of contour-terminal.
Ref: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/contour-terminal https://github.com/contour-terminal/contour/pull/1301
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |davide@cavalca.name Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |davide@cavalca.name Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- 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]: 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]: 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", "Apache License 2.0". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2245909-boxed-cpp/licensecheck.txt [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: /tmp/2245909-boxed-cpp/upstream-unpacked/Source0/boxed- cpp-783cb74e95cbe06a52b468a73c14467e8f082cd1/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. [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]: 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]: 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 4756 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. [-]: 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: boxed-cpp-devel-1.0.1-1.20231023git783cb74.fc40.aarch64.rpm boxed-cpp-1.0.1-1.20231023git783cb74.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/tmpq4s30lod')] checks: 31, packages: 2
boxed-cpp-devel.aarch64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 1
boxed-cpp-devel.aarch64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/contour-terminal/boxed-cpp/archive/783cb74e95cbe06a52b468... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50e157b35451f2d06c46bb4e2277924f9a17fc9d2b23486889a562b662fc8b5f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50e157b35451f2d06c46bb4e2277924f9a17fc9d2b23486889a562b662fc8b5f
Requires -------- boxed-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(aarch-64)
Provides -------- boxed-cpp-devel: boxed-cpp-devel boxed-cpp-devel(aarch-64) boxed-cpp-static cmake(boxed-cpp)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2245909 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- This looks fine overall, my only recommendation would be to not use the forge macros, as they put the snapshot string (20231023git783cb74) in the Release, while policy recommends putting this in Version (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snaps...).
APPROVED, as this is still allowed, just noted as deprecated, so consider fixing it on import
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/boxed-cpp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245909
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-02-18 04:30:46
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com