[Bug 2351539] New: Review Request: redisx - Free and independent Redis / Valkey client library for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
Bug ID: 2351539 Summary: Review Request: redisx - Free and independent Redis / Valkey client library for C/C++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: attipaci@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... Description: RedisX is a free, light-weight Redis client library for C/C++. As such, it works with Redis forks / clones like Dragonfly or Valkey also. It supports both interactive and pipelined Redis queries, managing and processing subscriptions, atomic execution blocks, and LUA scripts loading. It can be used with multiple Redis servers simultaneously also. RedisX is free to use, in any way you like, without licensing restrictions.
Build for all Fedora supported platforms are available on Copr at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/attipaci/redisx/build/8753167/
Fedora Account System Username: attipaci
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://smithsonian.github. | |io/redisx
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8753234 (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=2351539
--- Comment #2 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
- Removed period at the end of the summary - Changed description to work around spell-checker - Added `%{_isa}` to dependent packages (maybe all should need it?)
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #3 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
- Removed unneeded build dependency (`valkey`). - Added `%{_isa}` to ALL dependent library packages.
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8753347 (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=2351539
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2079815 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2079815&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8753347 to 8753385
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8753385 (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=2351539
--- Comment #7 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
- Removed unneeded explicit dependencies
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8753464 (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=2351539
--- Comment #9 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
- Oops, last spec changes were not pushed. Try again...
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2079847 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2079847&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8753464 to 8753502
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8753502 (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=2351539
--- Comment #12 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- As for the two remaining rpmlint warnings:
redisx.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libredisx.so.1 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list redisx.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libredisx.so.1
I will change upstream (next release candidate) to address these there. The first one is for legacy OpenSSL support (<1.1.1), and can be completely disabled when built against newer versions (openssl >= 1.1.1). The second will be fixed by using `getaddrinfo()` instead.
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #13 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
- Updated for new upstream release candidate (v1.0.0-rc3).
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2080520 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2080520&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8753502 to 8772887
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8772887 (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=2351539
--- Comment #16 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
- Updated to latest upstream release candidate (1.0.0~rc4)
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2081857 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2081857&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8772887 to 8816141
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8816141 (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=2351539
--- Comment #19 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
- Updated for upstream v1.0.0 release.
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2088617 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2088617&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8816141 to 9000609
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9000609 (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=2351539
--- Comment #22 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
- Upsteam release v1.0.1
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
Terje Rosten terjeros@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |terjeros@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |terjeros@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #23 from Terje Rosten terjeros@gmail.com --- 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* The Unlicense". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/trosten/fedora/review/2351539-redisx/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5293 bytes in 3 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. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: 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: redisx-1.0.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm redisx-devel-1.0.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm redisx-doc-1.0.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm redisx-1.0.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpciabbs1f')] checks: 32, packages: 4
redisx.spec:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 10) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 26 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: redisx-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpv9qlnru6')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 36 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Smithsonian/redisx/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 17959e23c17479c5a11560d16f35879fb47b981402418ecfa50b9dcf8a27b741 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 17959e23c17479c5a11560d16f35879fb47b981402418ecfa50b9dcf8a27b741
Requires -------- redisx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libbsd.so.0()(64bit) libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0(LIBPOPT_0)(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) libredisx.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libxchange(x86-64) libxchange.so.1()(64bit) openssl(x86-64) popt(x86-64) readline(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH)
redisx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libbsd-devel(x86-64) libomp-devel(x86-64) libredisx.so.1()(64bit) libxchange-devel(x86-64) openssl-devel(x86-64) popt-devel(x86-64) readline-devel(x86-64) redisx(x86-64)
redisx-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- redisx: libredisx.so.1()(64bit) redisx redisx(x86-64)
redisx-devel: redisx-devel redisx-devel(x86-64)
redisx-doc: redisx-doc
Summary: - remove all use of tabs in spec file -
Requires: libxchange%{_isa} >= 1.0.1 Requires: openssl%{_isa} Requires: popt%{_isa} Requires: readline%{_isa}
These are added by rpmbuild, see lib*so.* deps above.
BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: sed BuildRequires: doxygen >= 1.9.0 BuildRequires: libxchange-devel%{_isa} >= 1.0.1 BuildRequires: libomp-devel%{_isa} BuildRequires: openssl-devel%{_isa} BuildRequires: popt-devel%{_isa} BuildRequires: readline-devel%{_isa} BuildRequires: libbsd-devel%{_isa}
Sort these lines and remomve %{_isa}
Requires: libxchange-devel%{_isa} >= 1.0.1 Requires: libomp-devel%{_isa} Requires: openssl-devel%{_isa} Requires: popt-devel%{_isa} Requires: readline-devel%{_isa} Requires: libbsd-devel%{_isa
I think %{_isa} can be removed here too, the
Requires: %{name}%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
needs it.
%prep %setup -q -n redisx-%{upstream_version}
Use autosetup and remove use of both -n option and %{upstream_version} variable.
%build
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%check
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/lib make test
%install
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} libdir=%{_libdir} install
Use modern %make_build and %make_install macros, move %check section to after %install.
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}-cli.1.gz
Use:
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}-cli.1*
Use of %{name} in files is more confusing than helpful.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #24 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-43... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-43...
Hi Terje!
Thanks for the review. I have implemented all your suggestions. I do wonder about the %autosetup though in:
%setup -q -n redisx-%{upstream_version}
Use autosetup and remove use of both -n option and %{upstream_version} variable.
Does %autosetup, without the -n option, handle the case when the upstream version is different from the package version, such as for release candidates, e.g. '1.1.0-rc3' (upstream) vs '1.1.0~rc3' (RPM)?
Thanks,
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2113648 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2113648&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9000609 to 9783318
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9783318 (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=2351539
--- Comment #27 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Hi Terje,
I am also wondering about dropping the %{_isa} from the Requires for the 'devel' sub-package. It seems to me, that the %{_isa} would be needed here. For example, you might have, say 'libomp_devel.i686' installed on an x86_64 host, but you could not use that with the 'redisx-devel.x86_64' package when linking. You would need to install `libomp.x86_64' specifically...
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #28 from Terje Rosten terjeros@gmail.com ---
Does %autosetup, without the -n option, handle the case when the upstream version is different from the package version, such as for release candidates, e.g. '1.1.0- rc3' (upstream) vs '1.1.0~rc3' (RPM)?
%autosetup supports the -n option (like %setup) if you need that at later point.
am also wondering about dropping the %{_isa} from the Requires for the 'devel' sub-package. It seems to me, that the %{_isa} would be needed here. For example, you might have, say 'libomp_devel.i686' installed on an x86_64 host, but you could not use that with the 'redisx-devel.x86_64' package when linking. You would need to install `libomp.x86_64' specifically...
I think you are right, adding %{_isa} is fine, however koji and copr etc don't this to operate correctly.
Changes looks good, the sole thing left are these Requires:
Source0: https://github.com/Smithsonian/redisx/archive/refs/tags/v%%7Bupstream_versio... Requires: libxchange%{_isa} >= 1.0.1 Requires: openssl%{_isa} Requires: popt%{_isa} Requires: readline%{_isa}
rpmbuild will produce deps to libfoo.so* as seen from:
redisx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libbsd.so.0()(64bit) libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0(LIBPOPT_0)(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) libredisx.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libxchange(x86-64) libxchange.so.1()(64bit) openssl(x86-64) popt(x86-64) readline(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH)
so you can safely remove these requires lines.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #29 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/attipaci/redisx/fedora-ra...
Hi Terje,
I removed those 'Requires' entries, and put the %{_isa} back into the -devel Requires.
-- A.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
Terje Rosten terjeros@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #30 from Terje Rosten terjeros@gmail.com --- Thanks,
package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
--- Comment #31 from Attila Kovacs attipaci@gmail.com --- Thanks Terje!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redisx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-104a4b6a5d (redisx-1.0.1-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-104a4b6a5d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351539
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-11-10 12:45:21
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-104a4b6a5d (redisx-1.0.1-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com