[Bug 1985116] New: Review Request: wildmatch - C/C++ library for git/rsync-style pattern matching
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985116
Bug ID: 1985116 Summary: Review Request: wildmatch - C/C++ library for git/rsync-style pattern matching Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/wildmatch/wildmatch.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/wildmatch/wildmatch-0.9-1.fc35.src....
Description: wildmatch is a BSD-licensed C/C++ library for git/rsync-style pattern matching.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985116
Lukáš Zaoral lzaoral@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lzaoral@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Lukáš Zaoral lzaoral@redhat.com --- Hi Davide, note, that I'm not a member of the packager group yet and this is one of the reviews I've to write to become one. Therefore, some of my suggestions or remarks may not be perfect. Thank you for understanding and patience until some official member responds to your review request (and reviews my review).
* SRPM contains some files that are also under different licenses than BSD (e.g. BSD with 2 or 3 clauses) as specified in the spec file. `licensecheck` also found some files licensed under GPL and BSD 4-clause. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline....
* `wildmatch` package doesn't install any LICENSE file.
* `wildmatch-devel` should contain following requires declaration: `Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}` (the `%{?_isa}` part is missing). See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_p....
* I see that you manually add so-name version to the libraries. You have to contact upstream, if you haven't already done so, to upstream this change. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_na....
* It might also be worth to get in touch with upstream to port the `CMakeLists.txt` to newer version to fix the following warning so that the package will build with future CMake releases without any problems: `Compatibility with CMake < 2.8.12 will be removed from a future version of CMake`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985116
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Lukáš is quite right, missing license in base rpm is a blocker. All other are relevant, but less severe. Still should be fixed.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com's needinfo: Bug 1985116: Review Request: wildmatch - C/C++ library for git/rsync-style pattern matching https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985116
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/wildmatch/wildmatch.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/wildmatch/wildmatch-0.9-1.fc38.src....
Changelog: - update license and install license file - fix Requires for devel package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985116
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dcavalca@fb.com) |
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/wildmatch/wildmatch.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/wildmatch/wildmatch-0.9-1.fc38.src....
Changelog: - update license and install license file - fix Requires for devel package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985116
--- Comment #6 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- I will put up a PR upstream for the cmake changes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985116
Kalvin McCallum kalvin_mccallum@student.uml.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalvin_mccallum@student.uml | |.edu
--- Comment #7 from Kalvin McCallum kalvin_mccallum@student.uml.edu --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kalvinmccallum/1985116-wildmatch/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wildmatch-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 4
wildmatch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/davvid/wildmatch/archive/v0.9/wildmatch-0.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6e17ad172c0947ff591cdb3a376e3e7b9855168a203a89958391367d9b5b4156 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e17ad172c0947ff591cdb3a376e3e7b9855168a203a89958391367d9b5b4156
Requires -------- wildmatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
wildmatch-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libwildmatch-cxx.so.0.9()(64bit) libwildmatch.so.0.9()(64bit) wildmatch(x86-64)
wildmatch-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
wildmatch-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- wildmatch: libwildmatch-cxx.so.0.9()(64bit) libwildmatch.so.0.9()(64bit) wildmatch wildmatch(x86-64)
wildmatch-devel: wildmatch-devel wildmatch-devel(x86-64)
wildmatch-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libwildmatch-cxx.so.0.9-0.9-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libwildmatch.so.0.9-0.9-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) wildmatch-debuginfo wildmatch-debuginfo(x86-64)
wildmatch-debugsource: wildmatch-debugsource wildmatch-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1985116 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Java, R, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com