https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440988
Benson Muite <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | --- Comment #6 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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]: 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. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License". 418 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988- libxml++40/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/devhelp(libsigc++20-doc, gdlmm-doc, cluttermm-doc, pangomm2.48-doc, cairomm1.16-doc, glibmm2.4-doc, atkmm-doc, glibmm2.68-doc, pangomm-doc, libxml++30-doc, libxml++50-doc, gtkmm2.4-doc, gtkmm4.0-doc, libsigc++30-doc, atkmm2.36-doc, cairomm- doc, gconfmm26-doc, gtkmm3.0-doc, devhelp), /usr/share/devhelp/books(libsigc++20-doc, gdlmm-doc, cluttermm-doc, pangomm2.48-doc, cairomm1.16-doc, glibmm2.4-doc, atkmm-doc, glibmm2.68-doc, pangomm-doc, libxml++30-doc, libxml++50-doc, gtkmm2.4-doc, gtkmm4.0-doc, libsigc++30-doc, atkmm2.36-doc, cairomm- doc, gconfmm26-doc, gtkmm3.0-doc, devhelp) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 34772 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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: [x]: 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 libxml++40-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 6.6 starting (python version = 3.14.3, NVR = mock-6.6-1.fc43), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True --resultdir=/home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results install /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-2.fc45.noarch.rpm /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-debugsource-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/results/libxml++40-debuginfo-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 6.6 INFO: Mock Version: 6.6 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-2.fc45.noarch.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-debugsource-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-debuginfo-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 75ba6a61f623448e91a00c2a5eda4e80 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.7eb19eru:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 45 install /builddir/libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-2.fc45.noarch.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-debugsource-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm /builddir/libxml++40-debuginfo-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm libxml++40-devel-4.4.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm libxml++40-doc-4.4.0-2.fc45.noarch.rpm libxml++40-4.4.0-2.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpy5xyk8nj')] checks: 32, packages: 4 libxml++40.src: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d') libxml++40.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libxmlplusplus/libxmlplusplus/releases/download/4.4.0/libxml++-4.4.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 02365465f62c7c8fe38618da8805fd8d8fd18544cd88b18c39098995513787bb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 02365465f62c7c8fe38618da8805fd8d8fd18544cd88b18c39098995513787bb Requires -------- libxml++40 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libglibmm-2.68.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.2)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.7)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.8)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.15)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.2)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.20)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.3)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.6)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libxml++40-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libxml++-4.0.so.1()(64bit) libxml++40(x86-64) pkgconfig(glibmm-2.68) pkgconfig(libxml-2.0) libxml++40-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibmm26-doc Provides -------- libxml++40: libxml++-4.0.so.1()(64bit) libxml++40 libxml++40(x86-64) libxml++40-devel: libxml++40-devel libxml++40-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libxml++-4.0) libxml++40-doc: libxml++40-doc Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/srpm/libxml++40.spec 2026-03-08 18:36:26.514803371 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libxml++/2440988-libxml++40/srpm-unpacked/libxml++40.spec 2026-02-19 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global api_ver 4.0 @@ -36,5 +46,5 @@ Summary: Documentation for %{name}, includes full API docs BuildArch: noarch -Requires: glibmm2.68-doc +Requires: glibmm26-doc %description doc @@ -76,3 +86,9 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Feb 19 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[email protected]> - 4.4.0-2 +- run tests + +* Thu Feb 19 2026 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[email protected]> - 4.4.0-1 +- initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440988 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, R, fonts, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) It seems ok. Not sure why it fails to install in mock. -- 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=2440988 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202440988%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
