https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638768

--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- But fmt is already in the distribution, so a package review ticket is not helpful.

Name : fmt Version : 3.0.2 Release : 5.fc28 Arch : x86_64 Size : 43 k Source : fmt-3.0.2-5.fc28.src.rpm Repo : fedora Summary : Small, safe and fast formatting library for C++ URL : https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt License : BSD Description : C++ Format is an open-source formatting library for C++. It can be used as a : safe alternative to printf or as a fast alternative to IOStreams.

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fmt

If you were trying to get the existing version updated, you should work with the existing maintainer. Submit patches or a pull request. If the maintainer is unresponsive, begin the process to address that: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers. If there are bugs or the outdated version is blocking something, ask for the assistance of a provenpackager.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638768

Kefu Chai kchai@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords| |Reopened

--- Comment #3 from Kefu Chai kchai@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tchaikov/libfmt/master/fmt.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tchaikov/libfmt/fedora-28-x8... Description: C++ Format is an open-source formatting library for C++. It can be used as a safe alternative to printf or as a fast alternative to IOStreams. Fedora Account System Username: tchaikov Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30288703

Review Description: this is my first package, and I would like to have a sponsor.

I am reopening this bug, as the maintainer has orphaned the package. so I think to get the package uploaded I need to have a sponsor first.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638768

--- Comment #5 from Kefu Chai kchai@redhat.com --- corp build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tchaikov/libfmt/build/812180/

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638768

--- Comment #7 from Kefu Chai kchai@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)

• Not used anymore for F28+

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

If you plan on packaging for EPEL7 or F27, use %ldconfig_scriptlets

yes, i plan to package for EPEL7. have changed to %ldconfig_scriptlets .

• In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we now forbid globbing the

major soname version. Be more specific instead:

%{_libdir}/libfmt.so.5*

• %{_datarootdir} → %{_datadir}

thanks fixed all of them.

(In reply to Kefu Chai from comment #4)

...

to understand the reverse dependencies of fmt, i ran following commands on an update-to-date fedora28:

$ for pkg in -devel "" -static -doc; do \ dnf repoquery -q --alldeps --whatrequires fmt$pkg; \ done fmt-static-0:3.0.2-5.fc28.i686 fmt-static-0:3.0.2-5.fc28.x86_64 fmt-devel-0:3.0.2-5.fc28.i686 fmt-devel-0:3.0.2-5.fc28.x86_64

$ for pkg in -devel "" -static -doc; do \ dnf repoquery --archlist=src --repoid=fedora-source -q --whatrequires fmt$pkg; \ done # nothing returned

so i think it's safe to update fmt{,-devel,-doc} on fedora28. and the same is very likely to be true on rawhive.

$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires fmt --enablerepo="*-source" fmt-devel-0:3.0.2-7.fc29.i686 fmt-devel-0:3.0.2-7.fc29.x86_64 kodi-gbm-0:18.0-0.10.b3.fc29.x86_64 kodi-gbm-0:18.0-0.9.b2.fc29.x86_64 kodi-wayland-0:18.0-0.10.b3.fc29.x86_64 kodi-wayland-0:18.0-0.9.b2.fc29.x86_64 kodi-x11-0:18.0-0.10.b3.fc29.x86_64 kodi-x11-0:18.0-0.9.b2.fc29.x86_64

dnf repoquery --whatrequires fmt-devel --enablerepo="*-source" fmt-static-0:3.0.2-7.fc29.i686 fmt-static-0:3.0.2-7.fc29.x86_64 kodi-0:18.0-0.10.b3.fc29.src kodi-0:18.0-0.9.b2.fc29.src

Bumping fmt would requires rebuilding kodi. You'll need to announce the bump in the devel mailing list one week in advance and coordinate directly with the kodi* maintainers.

ahh! thank you! i checked the packaging of kodi. guess we will just need to

change

BuildRequires: fmt-devel

to

BuildRequires: fmt-devel >= 5.2.1

i will get in touch with kodi*'s maintainers over the devel mailing list.

Package Review

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

Issues:

• ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in fmt See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets

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

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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: "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 185 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/fmt/review- fmt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 92160 bytes in 2 files.

yes, the 92K document is usr/share/doc/fmt/api.html in fmt-doc package. that's the main api document for this package.

[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 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 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: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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 fmt-doc , fmt-debuginfo , fmt-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. [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]: 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: fmt-5.2.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm fmt-devel-5.2.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm fmt-doc-5.2.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm fmt-debuginfo-5.2.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm fmt-debugsource-5.2.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm fmt-5.2.1-1.fc30.src.rpm fmt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, print f

printf is not a typo. quote from the description section:

====8<===== C++ Format is an open-source formatting library for C++. It can be used as a safe alternative to printf or as a fast alternative to IOStreams. ====>8=====

so in this context, i guess it's fine to use printf.

fmt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

the document is packaged in fmt-doc, the license and changelog are included in fmt package.

fmt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, print f 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

thanks for the review. following is the info of updated package:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tchaikov/libfmt/master/fmt.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tchaikov/libfmt/fedora-28-pp... Description: C++ Format is an open-source formatting library for C++. It can be used as a safe alternative to printf or as a fast alternative to IOStreams. Fedora Account System Username: tchaikov https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tchaikov/libfmt/fedora-28-pp... koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30342847 coprs build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tchaikov/libfmt/build/812978/

$ rpmlint x86_64/fmt-5.2.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm x86_64/fmt-devel-5.2.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm noarch/fmt-doc-5.2.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm fmt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, print f fmt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638768

Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |

--- Comment #9 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- I have worked with Kefu before, so I will sponsor him here. I've added you to the packagers group now, Kefu. Please let me know if you need assistance with the rest of the process. Happy packaging :)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638768

Kefu Chai tchaikov@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed|2018-10-12 21:18:08 |2018-10-31 03:24:39