https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Hello,

- Please use a more meaningful archive name, with:

Source0: https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bv...

- Part of the package is GPL2:

GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- xxHash-0.6.3/xxhsum.c

Please reflect this in the License: field and add a comment explaining which part is covered by what license.

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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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: [x]: 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/xxhash/review-xxhash/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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 xxhash- libs , xxhash-devel , xxhash-debuginfo , xxhash-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: xxhash-0.6.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm xxhash-libs-0.6.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm xxhash-devel-0.6.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm xxhash-debuginfo-0.6.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm xxhash-debugsource-0.6.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm xxhash-0.6.3-1.fc28.src.rpm xxhash.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane xxhash.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xxhash-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane xxhash-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xxhash-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation xxhash-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation xxhash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xxhash

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- root-6.10.08-1.fc25 xxhash-0.6.3-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c9f0e1da81

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- root-6.10.08-1.fc26 xxhash-0.6.3-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0b9fc2a63c

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- root-6.10.08-1.fc27, xxhash-0.6.3-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-685325c157

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- root-6.10.08-1.fc25, xxhash-0.6.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c9f0e1da81

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- root-6.10.08-1.el7, xxhash-0.6.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-074924383a

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-10-31 20:06:06

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- root-6.10.08-1.fc26, xxhash-0.6.3-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- xxhash-0.6.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461

Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1270317 CC| |fraph24@gmail.com

--- Comment #18 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1282063 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317 [Bug 1270317] Review Request: lz4-java - LZ4 compression for Java