[Bug 2253491] New: Review Request: enkiTS - A C and C++ task scheduler for creating parallel programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
Bug ID: 2253491 Summary: Review Request: enkiTS - A C and C++ task scheduler for creating parallel programs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/enkiTS/fedora-rawh... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/enkiTS/fedora-rawh...
description: The primary goal of enkiTS is to help developers create programs which handle both data and task level parallelism to utilize the full performance of multicore CPUs, whilst being lightweight (only a small amount of code) and easy to use.
fas: fed500
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110008896
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
--- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Are you planning to backport this to EPEL, and if so, which EPELs? Some of my feedback will depend on whether you are trying to maintain single-spec-file backward compatibility with particular EPELs or just working in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai |in.net) |lplus.org)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Mostly expect to have it for Fedora. It is a dependency of VIAMD https://github.com/scanberg/viamd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: enkiTS : /usr/share/doc/enkiTS/Timer.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages
OK, because these sources are documentation and belong to the example.
However:
* Consider replacing
%doc example/*.cpp %doc example/*.c %doc example/*.h
with
%doc example/
so that the example is packaged in %{_pkgdocdir}/example/ rather than directly in %{_pkgdocdir}. Otherwise, it’s kind of unclear why there are a bunch of source files in the documentation directory.
* Consider packaging the example with the -devel subpackage. They are perhaps not large enough to require a separate -doc or -examples subpackage, but at the same time, they are three times as large as teh compiled shared library, and are pretty much only useful for developers, so this seems a good compromise for minimizing the “weight” of the base package that things will be depending on at runtime. Alternatively, a separate noarch -doc or -examples package subpackage would be acceptable.
- The package needs to own /usr/include/enkiTS.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories...
At minimum, change
%{_includedir}/enkiTS/TaskScheduler.h %{_includedir}/enkiTS/LockLessMultiReadPipe.h %{_includedir}/enkiTS/TaskScheduler_c.h
to
%dir %{_includedir}/enkiTS/ %{_includedir}/enkiTS/TaskScheduler.h %{_includedir}/enkiTS/LockLessMultiReadPipe.h %{_includedir}/enkiTS/TaskScheduler_c.h
but you could also choose to simplify this to
%{_includedir}/enkiTS/
so you don’t have to worry about explicitly listing the headers.
Similarly, you *might* prefer to write
%dir %{_libdir}/cmake/enkiTS %{_libdir}/cmake/enkiTS/*.cmake
as
%{_libdir}/cmake/enkiTS/
but there is nothing wrong with it as-is.
- The %{__cmake_builddir} macro “is suitable only for rare compatibility reasons. For normal out-of-source builds, this macro is the same as %_vpath_builddir. It may be removed in the future.”
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_...
Therefore, please change
%{__cmake_builddir}/TestAll
to
%{_vpath_builddir}/TestAll
- Using forge macros to do snapshot versioning is OK, but versioning with the snapshot information in the Release field is a deprecated style:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#tradit...
Plus, if you are already using the forge macros, why write the URL manually?
Consider changing
%global forgeurl https://github.com/dougbinks/enkiTS %global commit 8c13c08744f7515da13684d46bf8f279a5b94ab2 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) %forgemeta
[…]
License: Zlib URL: %{forgeurl} Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
to
%global forgeurl https://github.com/dougbinks/enkiTS %global version0 1.11 %global commit 8c13c08744f7515da13684d46bf8f279a5b94ab2 %forgemeta
[…]
License: Zlib URL: %{forgeversion} Source: %{forgesource}
For documentation, see the comments in:
https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/forge-srpm-macros/tree/main/item/rpm/macros.d/ma...
===== Notes (change not required for approval) =====
- You do not need to number the sole Source; you can change “Source0:” to “Source:”
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: 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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2253491-enkiTS/licensecheck.txt
License is correctly identified as Zlib.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src/debug, /usr, /usr/include, /usr/share, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/include/enkiTS, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib64, /usr/src
Most of these are spurious diagnostics (fedora-review bug).
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src/debug, /usr/src, /usr/share, /usr/include/enkiTS, /usr/include, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib64, /usr/share/licenses, /usr
Most of these are spurious diagnostics (fedora-review bug), but the package does need to own /usr/include/enkiTS.
[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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 117784 bytes in 23 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(except as otherwise mentioned)
[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 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: [-]: 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.
(tests pass)
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118452809
[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]: 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: enkiTS-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-devel-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-debuginfo-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-debugsource-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.src.rpm ============================================================================================ rpmlint session starts ============================================================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpq6zkmxec')] checks: 32, packages: 5
enkiTS.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 70% enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation enkiTS.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.11-1 ['1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41', '1.11-1.git8c13c08'] enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary ====================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 54 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =======================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: enkiTS-debuginfo-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============================================================================================ rpmlint session starts ============================================================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpeklo16fk')] checks: 32, packages: 1
======================================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =======================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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
enkiTS.x86_64: W: package-with-huge-docs 70% enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation enkiTS.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.11-1 ['1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41', '1.11-1.git8c13c08'] enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 49 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dougbinks/enkiTS/archive/8c13c08744f7515da13684d46bf8f279... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d04ae2bd83ee98802b4c4d4c77feec2022dfd29f70aacd74d85b28094f0a80ca CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d04ae2bd83ee98802b4c4d4c77feec2022dfd29f70aacd74d85b28094f0a80ca
Requires -------- enkiTS (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) rtld(GNU_HASH)
enkiTS-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) enkiTS(x86-64) libenkiTS.so.1()(64bit)
enkiTS-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
enkiTS-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- enkiTS: enkiTS enkiTS(x86-64) libenkiTS.so.1()(64bit)
enkiTS-devel: cmake(enkiTS) cmake(enkits) enkiTS-devel enkiTS-devel(x86-64)
enkiTS-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) enkiTS-debuginfo enkiTS-debuginfo(x86-64) libenkiTS.so.1.11-1.11-1.git8c13c08.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
enkiTS-debugsource: enkiTS-debugsource enkiTS-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2253491 --mock-options=--dnf Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, R, Python, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- %{forgesource} macro does not work in this case. Will seee if can send a patch to fix it. Have applied all other suggestions.
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/enkiTS/fedora-rawh... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/enkiTS/fedora-rawh...
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124429408
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8110666 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- enkiTS-examples : /usr/share/doc/enkiTS-examples/example/Timer.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=2253491
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Mark example build as noarch
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/enkiTS/fedora-rawh... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/enkiTS/fedora-rawh...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2050640 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2050640&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8110666 to 8110714
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8110714 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- enkiTS-examples : /usr/share/doc/enkiTS-examples/example/Timer.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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=2253491
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #9 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- I’m sorry it took me so long to come back to this review.
The latest submission correctly incorporates all the feedback from the original review, and I found no further issues.
The package is APPROVED.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: enkiTS-examples : /usr/share/doc/enkiTS-examples/example/Timer.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages
OK, because these sources are documentation and belong to the example.
===== 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]: 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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2253491-enkiTS/licensecheck.txt
License is correctly identified as Zlib.
[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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 119509 bytes in 23 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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in enkiTS- examples [x]: Package functions as described.
(tests pass)
[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.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126262939
[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 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: enkiTS-1.11^git686d0ec-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-devel-1.11^git686d0ec-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm enkiTS-examples-1.11^git686d0ec-1.fc42.noarch.rpm enkiTS-1.11^git686d0ec-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpligr9k17')] checks: 32, packages: 4
enkiTS-examples.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary enkiTS-examples.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: enkiTS-debuginfo-1.11^git686d0ec-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpbhw3m329')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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
enkiTS-examples.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation enkiTS-examples.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary enkiTS-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 26 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dougbinks/enkiTS/archive/686d0ec31829e0d9e5edf9ceb68c40f9... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1d531d9e4aaeb2fdf2c643558d2578ae18f1adebe22a97168b9ba6451edcd87e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1d531d9e4aaeb2fdf2c643558d2578ae18f1adebe22a97168b9ba6451edcd87e
Requires -------- enkiTS (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) rtld(GNU_HASH)
enkiTS-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) enkiTS(x86-64) libenkiTS.so.1()(64bit)
enkiTS-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- enkiTS: enkiTS enkiTS(x86-64) libenkiTS.so.1()(64bit)
enkiTS-devel: cmake(enkiTS) cmake(enkits) enkiTS-devel enkiTS-devel(x86-64)
enkiTS-examples: enkiTS-examples
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2253491 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Java, PHP, Haskell, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
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/enkiTS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6743bd5aaa (enkiTS-1.11^git686d0ec-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6743bd5aaa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-5f5cebe502 (enkiTS-1.11^git686d0ec-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5f5cebe502
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253491
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-5f5cebe502 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-2024-5f5cebe502 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5f5cebe502
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=2253491
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6743bd5aaa 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-2024-6743bd5aaa *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6743bd5aaa
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=2253491
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-12-05 01:33:09
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6743bd5aaa (enkiTS-1.11^git686d0ec-1.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=2253491
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-5f5cebe502 (enkiTS-1.11^git686d0ec-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
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com