[Bug 2253468] New: Review Request: spectra - A header-only C++ library for large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253468
Bug ID: 2253468 Summary: Review Request: spectra - A header-only C++ library for large scale eigenvalue problems Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: 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/spectra.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/spectra-1.0.1-1.20230801git1f53e26.fc4... Description: A header-only C++ library for large scale eigenvalue problems Fedora Account System Username: topazus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253468
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6731861 (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=2253468
Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |shattuckite@outlook.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |shattuckite@outlook.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Beck Liu shattuckite@outlook.com --- Looks all fine. Approved.
+ package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora: MPL-2.0 + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct + no scriptlets needed or present
spectra-devel.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/licenses/spectra-devel/LICENSE spectra-devel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/spectra-devel/LICENSE
I think this is minor issue.
spectra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: https://github.com/yixuan/spectra/pull/169.patch
A strange issue, which the patch really is applied.
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 [ ]: 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: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 18321 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: spectra-devel-1.0.1-1.20230801git1f53e26.fc40.x86_64.rpm spectra-1.0.1-1.20230801git1f53e26.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/tmpixc5a_px')] checks: 31, packages: 2
spectra-devel.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/licenses/spectra-devel/LICENSE spectra-devel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/spectra-devel/LICENSE spectra.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: https://github.com/yixuan/spectra/pull/169.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "spectra-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/yixuan/spectra/archive/1f53e26d2242cbd848cd5741f2019a91d8... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b52c4aa1778bc818980aefc74bb264a175d24b525c8208913c607db5528e52b0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b52c4aa1778bc818980aefc74bb264a175d24b525c8208913c607db5528e52b0
Requires -------- spectra-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem spectra-static(x86-64)
Provides -------- spectra-devel: cmake(spectra) spectra-devel spectra-devel(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name spectra --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, Python, Ocaml, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253468
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/spectra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253468
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-368e8b5f5a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-368e8b5f5a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253468
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-12-07 15:42:43
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-368e8b5f5a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com