[Bug 2354663] New: Review Request: libxml++50 - C++ wrapper for the libxml2 XML parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
Bug ID: 2354663 Summary: Review Request: libxml++50 - C++ wrapper for the libxml2 XML parser library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: spotrh@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libxml++50.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libxml++50-5.4.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: libxml++ is a C++ wrapper for the libxml2 XML parser library. Its original author is Ari Johnson and it is currently maintained by Christophe de Vienne and Murray Cumming. Fedora Account System Username: spot Koji Rawhide Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130713237
Note: libxml++ is designed to be parallel installed with other API versions of the library, several of which are actively maintained. Fedora has a libxml++ and a libxml++30 already. I need libxml++50 in order to update lincity-ng.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License". 441 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++50/2354663- libxml++50/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/devhelp(pangomm2.48-doc, gtkmm2.4-doc, gdlmm-doc, libsigc++30-doc, cairomm1.16-doc, gtkmm3.0-doc, libxml++30-doc, cluttermm-doc, gtksourceviewmm-doc, atkmm2.36-doc, cairomm-doc, glibmm2.68-doc, devhelp, gconfmm26-doc, glibmm2.4-doc, atkmm-doc, libsigc++20-doc, pangomm-doc, gtkmm4.0-doc), /usr/share/devhelp/books(pangomm2.48-doc, gtkmm2.4-doc, gdlmm-doc, libsigc++30-doc, cairomm1.16-doc, gtkmm3.0-doc, libxml++30-doc, cluttermm-doc, gtksourceviewmm-doc, atkmm2.36-doc, cairomm-doc, glibmm2.68-doc, devhelp, gconfmm26-doc, glibmm2.4-doc, atkmm-doc, libsigc++20-doc, pangomm-doc, gtkmm4.0-doc) [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 33617 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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 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: [-]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: libxml++50-5.4.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libxml++50-devel-5.4.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libxml++50-doc-5.4.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm libxml++50-5.4.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpqna6hvo_')] checks: 32, packages: 4
libxml++50.src: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d') libxml++50.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d') libxml++50.spec: W: no-%check-section libxml++50.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libxml++50/COPYING 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 20 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libxml++50-debuginfo-5.4.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp6myokbya')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 4
libxml++50.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d') libxml++50.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libxml++50/COPYING 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libxmlplusplus/libxmlplusplus/releases/download/5.4.0/lib... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e9a23c436686a94698d2138e6bcbaf849121d63bfa0f50dc34fefbfd79566848 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9a23c436686a94698d2138e6bcbaf849121d63bfa0f50dc34fefbfd79566848
Requires -------- libxml++50 (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_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.2)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.7)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.8)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.15)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.2)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.20)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libxml++50-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libxml++-5.0.so.1()(64bit) libxml++50(x86-64) pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)
libxml++50-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibmm24-doc
Provides -------- libxml++50: libxml++-5.0.so.1()(64bit) libxml++50 libxml++50(x86-64)
libxml++50-devel: libxml++50-devel libxml++50-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libxml++-5.0)
libxml++50-doc: libxml++50-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2354663 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Java, Python, R, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Javascript files in documentation are under MIT license b) Can tests be run? See: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130735141 c) Ask upstream to update text of GPL licenses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway spotrh@gmail.com --- a) good catch, updated the -docs license tag b) sure. %meson_test added in a new %check section in -2 c) https://github.com/libxmlplusplus/libxmlplusplus/pull/72
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libxml++50.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libxml++50-5.4.0-2.fc43.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Before import, please add the license file to the docs package as it does not require the main package. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- 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/libxml++50
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6a8894692c (libxml++50-5.4.0-3.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a8894692c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7c0e9a2576 (libxml++50-5.4.0-3.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7c0e9a2576
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7c0e9a2576 (libxml++50-5.4.0-3.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7c0e9a2576
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-41022c2951 (libxml++50-5.4.0-3.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-41022c2951
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-41022c2951 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-41022c2951 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-41022c2951
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7c0e9a2576 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-7c0e9a2576 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7c0e9a2576
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6a8894692c has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-6a8894692c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a8894692c
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-04-07 01:24:42
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7c0e9a2576 (libxml++50-5.4.0-3.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-41022c2951 (libxml++50-5.4.0-3.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354663
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6a8894692c (libxml++50-5.4.0-3.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com