https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
Bug ID: 1356499 Summary: Review Request: PEGTL - Parsing Expression Grammar Template Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dkopecek@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dkopecek/PEGTL/PEGTL.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dkopecek/PEGTL/PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description:
The Parsing Expression Grammar Template Library (PEGTL) is a zero-dependency C++11 header-only library for creating parsers according to a Parsing Expression Grammar (PEG).
Fedora Account System Username: mildew
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- it's better if it will be named in lower-case...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Kopeček dkopecek@redhat.com --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1)
it's better if it will be named in lower-case...
I don't think so. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuideline...
and upstream is here: https://github.com/ColinH/PEGTL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jjelen@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jjelen@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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. [-]: %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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 18 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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: [-]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: PEGTL-devel-1.3.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc23.src.rpm PEGTL.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers PEGTL.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
-- this is OK
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- PEGTL-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libstdc++-devel
Provides -------- PEGTL-devel: PEGTL PEGTL-devel PEGTL-devel(x86-64) PEGTL-static
Looks good to me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/PEGTL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6d20e825a0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-01354b4b29
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cf11737d4c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cf11737d4c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-01354b4b29
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6d20e825a0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-07-24 16:21:26
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- PEGTL-1.3.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla