https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/Chilledh | |eart/yass --- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6265622 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #3 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Updated spec for copr build Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/yass/releases/download/1.3.14/yass-nocare... SRPM URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/yass/releases/download/1.3.14/yass-1.3.14... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #5 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Updated spec for copr build (old url) Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/yass/releases/download/1.3.14/yass.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/yass/releases/download/1.3.14/yass-1.3.14... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #7 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Try new spec again. Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/yass/releases/download/1.3.14/yass-nocare... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6265708 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #11 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- I found out the updated spec is almost not used. Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.3.14-1/yass... SRPM URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.3.14-1/yass... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 1982956 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1982956&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6265737 to 6265743 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org CC| |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #16 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #15) Thanks for your work. It’s GPL-2.0-only. There is a COPYING file under the top directory of source documenting it. I don’t know what’s aspio doing but if you mean asio, it is almost header-only library. (Does it get packaged in fedora as well?) Thanks for pointing it out. There are two major obstacles from adopting system libraries, one is that it is a cross-platform project supporting msvc(visual c++), mingw32, Linux, musl-based Linux, FreeBSD and macOS targets. There are some reasons to keep things in one place and make it work across different platforms. The other is that yass largely depend on c++ libraries where some of them has no stable ABI which means things break on upgrading or downgrading the shared library. googletest and google-benchmark are on test purposes and c++ based. The api might vary between even two snapshots, so it is built from source if possible. For abseil-cpp, it is also c++ based. We are using the latest lts branch and from previous experience, we really don’t want to move from it as it might break sanitizers tests such as memory sanitizer. See https://clang.llvm.org/docs/MemorySanitizer.html. As to xxhash, we just bumped to lastest release 0.8.2. If fedora switches to it already, we can move to the system one. Otherwise, something might break as int64x2 or some definition is not found in some platforms. For http-parser, I really can’t catch up whether it is the same thing in yass project. The http-parser used comes from node project and not maintained for some years (get replaced by another parser in typed script). We can catch it up if it won’t get rid from fedora. Quiche library is bound to boringssl and we don’t have alternatives. Quiche is out from google internal library and used for two open source projects namely, chromium and envoy. You can start from it if want to make it a distributable package. I don’t believe there is a stable ABI because they breaks things from time to time. Officially, they support gn and bazel build system but only part of it is open source. If you are looking at bazel, you can’t miss envoy’s code. They separate every single library there. If I miss something here, please point it out in reply. Thanks in advance. I must admit I don’t be familiar with most of them. But there are many quiche libraries such the one from cloudflare is in golang and not related. https://github.com/cloudflare/quiche We are passing many custom options to cmake. If the rpm macros can work instead, we should replace them. yes, it is mimic required but besides the tool directory, it is used in boringssl to generate error-handling c code. No worry, the upstream will upload the git whole archive without history in every release such as 1.3.14 release, there is https://github.com/Chilledheart/yass/releases/download/1.3.14/yass-1.3.14... I will correct the url in next update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #18 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Changelog: update license field in spec and xxhash, http-parser dependents. Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.3.14-34/yas... SRPM URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.3.14-34/yas... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6271270 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6271272 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 1983232 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1983232&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6271272 to 6271304 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #26 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- There is also a third party library json-devel (aka, https://github.com/nlohmann/json https://fedora.pkgs.org/37/fedora-x86_64/json-devel-3.11.2-1.fc37.x86_64....) bundled. However, it is header-only library I don't think it is forced to use the system one, right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #28 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #27) Okay, I'll update the spec to use header-only nlohmann/json (i.e. json-devel in fedora repository) library. For other c++ libraries(such as boringssl, quiche, abseil-cpp, googletest and googlemock), I think it is better to use bundled one. It seems good that %lang works well even in RHEL7/CentOS7. Changelog: Fixed %lang usage and json-devel along with other upstream changes. Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.3.14-52/yas... SRPM URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.3.14-52/yas... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6310972 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 1984957 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1984957&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6310972 to 6340224 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #34 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.3.15-1/yass... SRPM URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.3.15-1/yass... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6340253 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #38 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Don't worry. Take your time and I'll be back whenever necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #40 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.4.3-0/yass.... SRPM URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.4.3-0/yass-... Short of changelog: more upstream changes and opensuse leap support. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #42 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.abseil-cpp is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/fedora/2231252-yass/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: [ ]: 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: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide- aarch64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/yass-1.4.3' returned non-zero exit status 2. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/yass [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/yass [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/applications(filesystem, java-runtime-decompiler, racket, pcp-gui), /usr/share/doc(glibc-doc, filesystem, slurm-doc), /usr/share/icons/hicolor(lammps-data, qmmp, pdfmod, swappy, autokey- common, nedit, qemu-common, vim-X11, hicolor-icon-theme, wesnoth-data, massif-visualizer, wdisplays, redeclipse, fonts-compare, qtl866, xephem, mono-tools, tuxanci, lite-xl, vacuum-im, fedora-logos, android-file-transfer, klatexformula, kgraphviewer, freedroidrpg), /usr/share/pixmaps(budgie-control-center-common, filesystem, qgis) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: 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: Test run failed [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: 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 yass- server , yass-client [ ]: 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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1597440 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: yass-1.4.3-0.fc40.aarch64.rpm yass-debuginfo-1.4.3-0.fc40.aarch64.rpm yass-debugsource-1.4.3-0.fc40.aarch64.rpm yass-server-1.4.3-0.fc40.aarch64.rpm yass-client-1.4.3-0.fc40.aarch64.rpm yass-1.4.3-0.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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/tmphhus8qhg')] checks: 31, packages: 6 yass.aarch64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/yass/LICENSE.mozilla yass.aarch64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/doc yass.aarch64: W: one-line-command-in-%post update-desktop-database yass.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yass yass-client.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yass_cli yass-server.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yass_server yass-client.aarch64: W: no-documentation yass-server.aarch64: W: no-documentation yass.aarch64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.3-1 ['1.4.3-0.fc40', '1.4.3-0'] yass.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/yass/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/yass/LICENSE 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 2.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: yass-debuginfo-1.4.3-0.fc40.aarch64.rpm yass-server-debuginfo-1.4.3-0.fc40.aarch64.rpm yass-client-debuginfo-1.4.3-0.fc40.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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/tmp389oqs7u')] checks: 31, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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: 31, packages: 7 yass.aarch64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/yass/LICENSE.mozilla yass.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/yass /lib64/libm.so.6 yass-server.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/yass_server /lib64/libm.so.6 yass-client.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/yass_cli /lib64/libm.so.6 yass.aarch64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/doc yass.aarch64: W: one-line-command-in-%post update-desktop-database yass.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yass yass-server.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yass_server yass-client.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yass_cli yass-server.aarch64: W: no-documentation yass-client.aarch64: W: no-documentation yass.aarch64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.3-1 ['1.4.3-0.fc40', '1.4.3-0'] yass.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/yass/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/yass/LICENSE 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 2.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Chilledheart/yass/releases/download/1.4.3/yass-1.4.3.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5460406ca8f3e596c848565bba28f2c51b8774ac0501c1783fd1ddfcccb44c7e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51e4f6898acb245f6708cd1f189f99c99c3b851a76db760395e3b2112efb59a3 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- yass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ca-certificates hicolor-icon-theme ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcares.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libhttp_parser.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmbedcrypto.so.7()(64bit) libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) yass-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yass-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yass-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcares.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhttp_parser.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmbedcrypto.so.7()(64bit) libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) yass-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcares.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhttp_parser.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmbedcrypto.so.7()(64bit) libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- yass: application() application(yass.desktop) yass yass(aarch-64) yass-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) yass-debuginfo yass-debuginfo(aarch-64) yass-debugsource: yass-debugsource yass-debugsource(aarch-64) yass-server: yass-server yass-server(aarch-64) yass-client: yass-client yass-client(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2231252 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Do not need to package licenses of packages used from the system such as zlib, http-parser, xxhash b) Is there anything special in your quiche and boringssl builds? Can try and package these. c) Will macros %cmake -G Ninja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DBUILD_BENCHMARKS=on -DBUILD_TESTS=on -DGUI=on -DCLI=on -DSERVER=on \ -DUSE_SYSTEM_ZLIB=on -DUSE_SYSTEM_NGHTTP2=on \ -DUSE_SYSTEM_MBEDTLS=on -DUSE_SYSTEM_JSON="%enable_system_json_opt" \ -DUSE_SYSTEM_XXHASH=on -DUSE_SYSTEM_HTTP_PARSER=on \ -DUSE_SYSTEM_CARES="%enable_system_cares_opt" -DUSE_LIBCXX="%enable_libcxx_opt" \ -DENABLE_LLD="%enable_lld_opt" -DUSE_BUILTIN_CA_BUNDLE_CRT=off %cmake_build %install %cmake_install and %check %ctest work? If so, they are preferred. Note that there is a macro for the build directory %__cmake_builddir work? see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_availab... d) You do not need the directives %dir /usr/share/icons/hicolor/ %dir /usr/share/applications/ %dir /usr/share/pixmaps/ %dir /usr/share/doc/ e) Add a `Provides: bundled() =` bundled directive https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Bundled_Software_policy/#_policy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #44 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- For each bundled package, please indicate if it is not available in Fedora, or if it is available in Fedora, why what is packaged cannot be used. For example abseil-cpp, asio, icu, nghttp2, protobuf and re2 are available: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/abseil-cpp https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/asio https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/icu https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nghttp2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/re2 Cannot find lss. Maybe can be packaged separately? Surprising that system libc++ and libc++std cannot be used. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #46 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #43) All license files of dynamically/statically linked libraries are selected from their source code and installed by cmake install target. I don’t have the time to check every individual files. But it isn’t most important thing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #48 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 1992232 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1992232&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6340253 to 6492135 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #50 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.4.7-0/yass.... SRPM URL: https://github.com/Chilledheart/copr-yass/releases/download/1.4.7-0/yass-... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #52 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6874104 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #54 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6874118 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #56 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Created attachment 2007868 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2007868&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6874118 to 6874216 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 --- Comment #58 from Keyue Hu <hukeyue(a)hotmail.com&gt; --- Fixed found issues in copr. Spec URL: https://wa.letshack.info/yass.spec SRPM URL: https://wa.letshack.info/yass-1.5.15-0.fc38.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged --- Comment #60 from Fedora Review Service <fedora-review-bot(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6877646 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-... Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231252 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...