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 2089880 (json-fortran) - Review Request: json-fortran - A Modern Fortran JSON API
Summary: Review Request: json-fortran - A Modern Fortran JSON API
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: json-fortran
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mark E. Fuller
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: mctc-lib
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-05-24 16:01 UTC by Susi Lehtola
Modified: 2022-06-05 01:27 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-06-05 01:09:34 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mark.e.fuller: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Susi Lehtola 2022-05-24 16:01:02 UTC
Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/json-fortran.spec
SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/json-fortran-8.3.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola

Description:
JSON-Fortran is a user-friendly, thread-safe, and object-oriented API
for reading and writing JSON files, written in modern Fortran.

Comment 1 Mark E. Fuller 2022-05-26 16:10:50 UTC
The review caught a couple items about the directory structure that are new to me and that I want to check on (feel free to comment since you have a lot more experience here than me):
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran,
     /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules

Other than that, everything looks great
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

No RPMlint findings


Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
=> Not an issue, this is FORTRAN (I know it's actually Fortran now)

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

C/C++:
[X]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[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:
[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: "Unknown or generated", "JSON License", "MIT License BSD
     3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)".
     122 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fuller/fedora-review/2089880-json-fortran/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran,
     /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules
[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 81920 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 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.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[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)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jacobwilliams/json-fortran/archive/8.3.0/json-fortran-8.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5fe9ad709a726416cec986886503e0526419742e288c4e43f63c1c22026d1e8a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5fe9ad709a726416cec986886503e0526419742e288c4e43f63c1c22026d1e8a


Requires
--------
json-fortran (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

json-fortran-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    json-fortran(x86-64)
    libjsonfortran.so.8.3()(64bit)

json-fortran-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

json-fortran-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
json-fortran:
    json-fortran
    json-fortran(x86-64)
    libjsonfortran.so.8.3()(64bit)

json-fortran-devel:
    cmake(jsonfortran-gnu)
    json-fortran-devel
    json-fortran-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(json-fortran)

json-fortran-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    json-fortran-debuginfo
    json-fortran-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libjsonfortran.so.8.3.0-8.3.0-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

json-fortran-debugsource:
    json-fortran-debugsource
    json-fortran-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2089880
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, R, fonts, PHP, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Susi Lehtola 2022-05-26 17:16:04 UTC
Thanks for the review!

(In reply to Mark E. Fuller from comment #1)
> The review caught a couple items about the directory structure that are new
> to me and that I want to check on (feel free to comment since you have a lot
> more experience here than me):
> [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>      Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran,
>      /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules
> 
> Other than that, everything looks great

The packaging guidelines say that this is where Fortran modules must be installed

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Fortran/

which is owned by gcc-gfortran. I switched to using the %_fmoddir macro and requiring gcc-gfortran in -devel.

https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/json-fortran.spec
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/json-fortran-8.3.0-2.fc36.src.rpm

Comment 3 Mark E. Fuller 2022-05-26 17:32:27 UTC
That clears everything up - approved

Comment 4 Susi Lehtola 2022-05-27 00:59:09 UTC
Thanks again!

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-05-27 13:33:58 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/json-fortran

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2022-05-27 15:18:24 UTC
FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2022-05-27 15:18:25 UTC
FEDORA-2022-14007dd684 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-14007dd684

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2022-05-28 02:06:39 UTC
FEDORA-2022-14007dd684 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-14007dd684 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-14007dd684

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-05-28 02:23:31 UTC
FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-06-05 01:09:34 UTC
FEDORA-2022-14007dd684 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-06-05 01:27:20 UTC
FEDORA-2022-ac320886b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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.