https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
Bug ID: 2366974 Summary: Review Request: xxhashct - Compile-time xxhash implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/xxhashct.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/xxhashct-0%5E20250517git4816a50-1.fc42.src.rp... Description:
An implementation of the 64-bit xxhash algorithm (see https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash) as C++11 constexpr expression.
Fedora Account System Username: music
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
--- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (I’m packaging this to suggest unbundling in bug 2366921.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- 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. [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", "MIT License". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/xxhashct/2366974- xxhashct/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 192 bytes in 1 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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: xxhashct-devel-0^20250517git4816a50-1.fc43.noarch.rpm xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.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/tmpdrdev5fy')] checks: 32, packages: 2
xxhashct.src: E: spelling-error ('constexpr', '%description -l en_US constexpr -> constipate') xxhashct-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('constexpr', '%description -l en_US constexpr -> constipate') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 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
xxhashct-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('constexpr', '%description -l en_US constexpr -> constipate') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ekpyron/xxhashct/archive/4816a508f696dc9aff65e7ae5fd250b5... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5883af6ef16ce301b2544b0661696db46f2b7134de0fcd35c55cbc8226f182fc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5883af6ef16ce301b2544b0661696db46f2b7134de0fcd35c55cbc8226f182fc
Requires -------- xxhashct-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- xxhashct-devel: xxhashct-devel xxhashct-static
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2366974 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, PHP, R, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132888923 b) Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xxhashct
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8f4365ab80 (xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8f4365ab80
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-05-18 01:01:32
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-8f4365ab80 (xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.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=2366974
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-f75cf62a84 (xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f75cf62a84
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-1cf3076225 (xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1cf3076225
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ca235ddc2e (xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ca235ddc2e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ca235ddc2e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ca235ddc2e
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=2366974
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-f75cf62a84 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-f75cf62a84 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f75cf62a84
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=2366974
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-1cf3076225 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-2025-1cf3076225 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1cf3076225
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=2366974
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-f75cf62a84 (xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.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=2366974
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ca235ddc2e (xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366974
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-1cf3076225 (xxhashct-0^20250517git4816a50-1.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