https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Bug ID: 2216484 Summary: Review Request: sexp - S-expressions parser and generator tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/plain/sexp.spec?id=35dda5335... SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/sexp-0.8.5-1.remi.src.rpm Description: S-expressions parser and generator tools.
Fedora Account System Username: remi
----
This library is for now bundled in rnp (used by thunderbird for GPG features) Support for build as shared is new (and still uncompleted, so requires "soversion" patch)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102422724
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- And rnp is ready to use this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rnp/c/e1f2beb8136748a9d8d8dbec44c95ef08d4...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Updated to 0.8.6 https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=427bda879b0b91d60...
Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/plain/sexp.spec?id=427bda879... SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/sexp-0.8.6-1.remi.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Probably have to wait on https://github.com/rnpgp/sexp/issues/45 name conflict libsexp (rnpgp/sexp and mjsottile/sfsexp)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: sexp - |Review Request: sexpp - |S-expressions parser and |S-expressions parser and |generator tools |generator tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Project was renamed from sexp to sexpp, solving the name conflict, so ready for review https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=ea373ce9bb624a069...
Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/plain/sexpp.spec?id=ea373ce9... SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/sexpp-0.8.7-1.remi.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ppisar@redhat.com CC| |ppisar@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- URL and Source0 addresses are Ok. Source0 archive (SHA-512: 28b93626887da3c1228ddbb9b8566f2d9895f263a1fc31ac2cfa6fc0215cb6a8ec31900255335792bfd580d10f53dd3f88274df83f8c0ddff62ebe35dce7da08) is original. Ok. Summary verified from README.adoc. Ok. Description verified from README.adoc. Ok. License verified from tests/src/primitives-tests.cpp, tests/src/g23-exception-tests.cpp, tests/src/g23-compat-tests.cpp, tests/src/g10-compat-tests.cpp, tests/src/exception-tests.cpp, tests/src/compare-files.cpp, tests/src/baseline-tests.cpp, tests/scripts/tests.sh, tests/include/sexp-tests, src/sexp-simple-string.cpp, src/sexp-output.cpp, src/sexp-object.cpp, src/sexp-main.cpp, src/sexp-input.cpp, src/sexp-error.cpp, src/sexp-depth-manager.cpp, src/sexp-char-defs.cpp, src/ext-key-format.cpp, include/sexpp/sexp.h, include/sexpp/sexp-public.h, include/sexpp/sexp-error.h, include/sexpp/ext-key-format.h, flake.nix, default.nix, codecov.yml, cmake/version.cmake, cmake/sexp-samples-folder.h.in, README.adoc, LICENSE.md, CMakeLists.txt, .github/workflows/nix.yml, .github/workflows/lint.yml, .github/workflows/coverity.yml, .github/workflows/coverage.yml, .github/workflows/codeql.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-rh.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-msys.yml, .github/workflows/build-and-test-deb.yml.
TODO: Build-require 'coreutils' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:70). TODO: Build-require 'grep' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:73). TODO: Build-require 'sed' under licensecheck condition (sexpp.spec:73).
TODO: Pass an explicit -DWITH_SEXP_TESTS=ON/OFF option to %cmake based on 'tests' macro. There is no need to build tests if you are not going to run them. TODO: Pass explicit -DWITH_SEXP_CLI=ON -DWITH_SANITIZERS=OFF -DWITH_COVERAGE=OFF options to %cmake. That will prevent from an unnoticed change in upstream defaults.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint sexpp.spec ../SRPMS/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-* ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-* ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 8
sexpp.spec:75: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 75) sexpp.spec:75: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 75) ========= 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ========
TODO: Normalize whitespace in the spec file.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 25584 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/bin/sexpp drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/85 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/85/6042f9ca57991a892f7fbba68986672cfc3ddc -> ../../../../usr/bin/sexpp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 813 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/man/man1/sexpp.1.gz $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/1b lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/1b/99df56177ea18d3307a7bfcddee0ea992bdb04 -> ../../../../usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0.8.7 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0 -> libsexpp.so.0.8.7 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 71080 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so.0.8.7 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/libsexpp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1368 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/libsexpp/LICENSE.md $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3270 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/ext-key-format.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2909 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp-error.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1287 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp-public.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17593 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/include/sexpp/sexp.h lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/libsexpp.so -> libsexpp.so.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 210 Jun 26 02:00 /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sexpp.pc File layout and permission are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 glibc >= 2.37.9000-14 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.32)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.38)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) 1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.32)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 glibc >= 2.37.9000-14 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.32)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.38)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.30)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.32)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 /usr/bin/pkg-config 1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 Binary requires are Ok.
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 sexpp = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 sexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libsexpp = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp.so.0()(64bit) $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-devel-0.8.7-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libsexpp-devel = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 libsexpp-devel(x86-64) = 0.8.7-1.fc39 1 pkgconfig(sexpp) = 0.8.7 Binary provides are Ok.
$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/sexpp-* ../RPMS/x86_64/libsexpp-* Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.
The package builds in Fedora 39 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102780001). Ok.
The package is in line with Fedora and CMake packaging guidelines. Please consider fixing the TODO items before building this package. Resolution: Package APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Damned, I miss the review
$ fedpkg request-repo -m no-monitoring -u https://github.com/rnpgp/sexpp -s 'S-expressions parser and generator tools' sexpp 2216484 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago
Petr, can you please approve it again?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- No problem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sexpp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #10 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Great thanks for the review
TODO fixed Spaces: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=bff393b7c33c036a8... Cmake: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/sexp.git/commit/?id=5a249783c2fb046a5...
SCM requests: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56074 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56075 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56076 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56077 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56078 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56079
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-39eb83c478 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-39eb83c478
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c
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=2216484
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-63c8871304
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=2216484
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7
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=2216484
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b7384c7d52 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-b7384c7d52 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b7384c7d52
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=2216484
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-39eb83c478 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-2023-39eb83c478
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=2216484
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-09-14 00:31:58
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-8166e85e2c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b7384c7d52 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-63c8871304 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216484
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-39eb83c478 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=2216484
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a2c4b376f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com