https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
Bug ID: 2367753 Summary: Review Request: span - std::span implementation for C++11 and later Product: Fedora Version: rawhide URL: https://github.com/tcbrindle/span Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@lecris.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/span/span.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/span/span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc4...
Description: Single-header implementation of C++20's std::span, conforming to the C++20 committee draft. It is compatible with C++11, but will use newer language features if they are available.
It differs from the implementation in the Microsoft GSL in that it is single-header and does not depend on any other GSL facilities. It also works with C++11, while the GSL version requires C++14.
Fedora Account System Username: lecris
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=133051114
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9069294 (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=2367753
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2366506
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366506 [Bug 2366506] Review Request: lief - Library to Instrument Executable Formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #2 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/span/2367753-span/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/tcb [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/tcb [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. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 0 bytes in 0 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: span-devel-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm span-0~20250521git836dc6a-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/tmpb4k1rbuz')] checks: 32, packages: 2
span.src: W: summary-not-capitalized std::span implementation for C++11 and later span.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: https://github.com/tcbrindle/span/pull/53.patch span.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: span-Fedora_patches.patch span-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 8 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: 1
span-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tcbrindle/span/archive/836dc6a0efd9849cb194e88e4aa2387436... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 66650479f85b92c6a6230706e4ac4a1bca18a7c7102fc7e02ad332f86548c9b6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66650479f85b92c6a6230706e4ac4a1bca18a7c7102fc7e02ad332f86548c9b6
Requires -------- span-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- span-devel: span-devel span-devel(x86-64) span-static
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/span/2367753-span/srpm/span.spec 2025-05-24 10:52:20.262176008 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/span/2367753-span/srpm-unpacked/span.spec 2025-05-21 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global debug_package %{nil}
@@ -70,3 +80,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed May 21 2025 John Doe packager@example.com - 0~20250521git836dc6a-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2367753 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please add an explanation for what the patches do. b) Please package and mark the license file %license LICENSE_1_0.txt c) Please package the README file %doc README.md d) [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/tcb please add %dir %{_includedir}/tcb or change %{_includedir}/tcb/span.hpp to %{_includedir}/tcb/ e) span.src: W: summary-not-capitalized std::span implementation for C++11 and later span.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: https://github.com/tcbrindle/span/pull/53.patch span.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: span-Fedora_patches.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #3 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/span/span.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/span/span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc4...
Thanks for catching all the issues. The remaining rpmlint issues is because of rpmlint#1074.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=133212509
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2091583 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2091583&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9069294 to 9080071
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9080071 (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=2367753
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- For some reason: Source: %forgesource0 gives https://github.com/tcbrindle/span/archive/836dc6a0efd9849cb194e88e4aa2387436... instead of https://github.com/tcbrindle/span/archive/836dc6a0efd9849cb194e88e4aa2387436...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #7 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Yes, that's according to forgemeta design and how I chose the full sha in the `%commit` instead of the truncated one. Effectively it does not make a difference since `%forgeautosetup` accounts for the difference in the `-n`, and both of them should be acceptable to Github as well.
The `Version` is truncated properly which is the important part.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Ok. It does download. Approved.
Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368379 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367064 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2368534
would be appreciated if time allows.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #9 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- Thank you for the review, Benson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/span
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #11 from Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/76304 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/76305
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d1e4f11e3d (span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d1e4f11e3d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
Cristian Le fedora@lecris.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1 | |.fc43
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-05-26 12:32:01
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d1e4f11e3d (span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d9d132a713 (span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d9d132a713
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d9d132a713 (span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d9d132a713
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-142daa89c4 (span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-142daa89c4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-142daa89c4 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-142daa89c4` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-142daa89c4
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=2367753
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d9d132a713 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-d9d132a713` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d9d132a713
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=2367753
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-142daa89c4 (span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2367753
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d9d132a713 (span-0~20250521git836dc6a-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org