https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
Bug ID: 1823001 Summary: Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jaruga@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junaruga/fedora-simde/master/simde.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/junaruga/fedora-simde/blob/master/simde-0.0.1-1.git29b911... Description: SIMD Everywhere Fedora Account System Username: jaruga
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #1 from Jun Aruga jaruga@redhat.com --- This is a package for the header only library. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header... for detail.
I tested following things.
* Check by `rpmlint`: ok * Check the binary RPMs installation: ok * Scratch build: ok https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43199492
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |vascom2@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vascom2@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Please correct URL to srpm.
Use %autosetup instead %setup -q
License file must be installed in all cases so Add it to simde-devel or require main package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #3 from Jun Aruga jaruga@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review!
Please correct URL to srpm.
Sorry that `fedora-review -b 1823001` does not work with the URL with parameters (?foo=bar). Here is the corrected URL.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junaruga/fedora-simde/master/simde.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/junaruga/fedora-simde/raw/master/simde-0.0.1-1.git29b9110... Description: SIMD Everywhere Fedora Account System Username: jaruga
Use %autosetup instead %setup -q
License file must be installed in all cases so Add it to simde-devel or require main package.
Let me fix it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #4 from Jun Aruga jaruga@redhat.com ---
Use %autosetup instead %setup -q
License file must be installed in all cases so Add it to simde-devel or require main package.
Let me fix it.
I fixed it and updated the Spec URL and SRPM URL's files too.
For %autosetup, the -S option is introduced as `%autosetup -S git` in both the manual [1] and podman.spec.But I did not use the -S option while using %autosetup, because I did not want to add git-core as BuildRequires for now.
I checked rpmlint, installation of binary RPMs and scratch build again.
* Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43280155
Vasiliy, could you review again?
[1] https://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- I think you should drop %files section and move all to -devel.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #6 from Jun Aruga jaruga@redhat.com ---
I think you should drop %files section and move all to -devel.
Okay. I fixed it and updated the Spec URL and SRPM URL's files too. I checked rpmlint, installation of binary RPMs and scratch build again. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43283079
Could you review again?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #7 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- You don't need ask me every time :) It is normal review process.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Approved.
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]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1823001-simde/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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: [x]: 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]: 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: 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: simde-devel-0.0.1-1.git29b9110.fc33.x86_64.rpm simde-0.0.1-1.git29b9110.fc33.src.rpm simde.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intrinsics -> intrinsic, intrinsic s, extrinsic simde.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US natively -> naively, negatively, tentatively 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- simde-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/nemequ/simde <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nemequ/munit/archive/da8f73412998e4f1adf1100dc187533a51af... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 835a9ee03e3b9560af5a2e4465394e00337398f5baba9d686083b8e1d93f0c30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 835a9ee03e3b9560af5a2e4465394e00337398f5baba9d686083b8e1d93f0c30 https://github.com/nemequ/simde/archive/29b911059dd06bc1e4c30d8922871a4b2392... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a4bbb3f2b0f79cb93f0fbff7d1d31c64e32e6cc621163b2de8e7f6d0635960d6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a4bbb3f2b0f79cb93f0fbff7d1d31c64e32e6cc621163b2de8e7f6d0635960d6
Requires -------- simde-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- simde-devel: simde-devel simde-devel(x86-64) simde-static
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1823001 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, R, Java, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #9 from Jun Aruga jaruga@redhat.com --- Thanks!
Now requesting the repository here.
``` $ fedpkg request-repo simde 1823001 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24277 ```
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/simde
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-660e1e4ca3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-660e1e4ca3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-129d21b52d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-129d21b52d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
Jun Aruga jaruga@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |simde-0.0.0-1.git29b9110.fc | |33
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad
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=1823001
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-660e1e4ca3 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-660e1e4ca3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-660e1e4ca3
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=1823001
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-129d21b52d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-129d21b52d
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=1823001
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-89e4b0a22d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-89e4b0a22d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5f3eb71f3b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5f3eb71f3b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-89e4b0a22d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-89e4b0a22d
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=1823001
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5f3eb71f3b has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-5f3eb71f3b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5f3eb71f3b
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=1823001
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-04-25 02:21:56
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-660e1e4ca3 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5f3eb71f3b has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-129d21b52d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-129d21b52d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-89e4b0a22d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com