Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1671885 - Review Request: glibd - D bindings for the GLib C Utility Library
Summary: Review Request: glibd - D bindings for the GLib C Utility Library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dalton Miner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1563877
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-02-02 00:42 UTC by Neal Gompa
Modified: 2019-02-08 03:20 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-02-08 03:20:45 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
daltonminer: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Neal Gompa 2019-02-02 00:42:16 UTC
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/glibd.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/glibd-2.0.2-1.fc29.src.rpm

Description:
D bindings for the GLib C Utility Library.

Fedora Account System Username: ngompa

Comment 1 Dalton Miner 2019-02-02 01:54:23 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[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 (v3 or later)", "*No
     copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GNU
     Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or
     later)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/dminer/1671885-glibd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/d
[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 10240 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 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 glibd-
     debuginfo , glibd-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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: glibd-2.0.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          glibd-devel-2.0.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          glibd-debuginfo-2.0.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          glibd-debugsource-2.0.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          glibd-2.0.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
glibd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: glibd-debuginfo-2.0.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
glibd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

glibd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libdruntime-ldc-shared.so.82()(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)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libphobos2-ldc-shared.so.82()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

glibd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    glibd(x86-64)
    libglibd-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(gio-2.0)
    pkgconfig(glib-2.0)
    pkgconfig(gobject-2.0)

glibd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
glibd-debugsource:
    glibd-debugsource
    glibd-debugsource(x86-64)

glibd:
    glibd
    glibd(x86-64)
    libglibd-2.0.so.0()(64bit)

glibd-devel:
    glibd-devel
    glibd-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(glibd-2.0)

glibd-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    glibd-debuginfo
    glibd-debuginfo(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GlibD/archive/v2.0.2/GlibD-2.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c60e5518301b5801868d902669f28f5b71ef945ea79e2ccd97b18b19007b93b3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c60e5518301b5801868d902669f28f5b71ef945ea79e2ccd97b18b19007b93b3


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1671885 -m ../../home/dminer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 2 Dalton Miner 2019-02-02 01:56:21 UTC
>[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/d

Is another package supposed to own this?

>[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

I assume there are just no tests available?

Comment 3 Neal Gompa 2019-02-02 02:03:12 UTC
(In reply to Dalton Miner from comment #2)
> >[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> >     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/d
> 
> Is another package supposed to own this?
> 

I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be owned by ldc-phobos-devel:

$ rpm -qf /usr/include/d
ldc-phobos-devel-1.12.0-2.fc30.x86_64


> >[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> 
> I assume there are just no tests available?

Oops, it actually does! I've added them and updated the Spec and SRPM accordingly. The links in the OP will reference the new ones.

Comment 4 Dalton Miner 2019-02-02 02:11:29 UTC
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3)
> (In reply to Dalton Miner from comment #2)
> > >[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > >     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/d
> > 
> > Is another package supposed to own this?
> > 
> 
> I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be owned by ldc-phobos-devel:
> 
> $ rpm -qf /usr/include/d
> ldc-phobos-devel-1.12.0-2.fc30.x86_64

So it is. (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/ldc-phobos-devel/contents/) Not sure what's up with that but seems fine to me then.

> 
> > >[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> > 
> > I assume there are just no tests available?
> 
> Oops, it actually does! I've added them and updated the Spec and SRPM
> accordingly. The links in the OP will reference the new ones.

Nice! Looks good.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-02-02 02:16:59 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibd

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-02-03 07:43:27 UTC
glibd-2.0.2-1.fc29 gir-to-d-0.17.0-1.fc29 appstream-generator-0.7.4-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-606a77e5e5

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-02-05 04:05:23 UTC
appstream-generator-0.7.4-1.fc29, gir-to-d-0.17.0-1.fc29, glibd-2.0.2-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-606a77e5e5

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-02-08 03:20:45 UTC
appstream-generator-0.7.4-1.fc29, gir-to-d-0.17.0-1.fc29, glibd-2.0.2-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.