Bug 2071646 - Review Request: stdman - C++ standard library man pages
Summary: Review Request: stdman - C++ standard library man pages
Keywords:
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-04-04 13:12 UTC by Mohamed Akram
Modified: 2024-03-18 13:07 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:
package-review: fedora-review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-04-10 10:35:32 UTC
Hmm, how is the License tag derived?
The content is from cppreference.com, but I couldn't find a license specification anywhere.

Comment 2 Mohamed Akram 2022-04-10 12:06:08 UTC
MIT license is for stdman itself, the other two are for cppreference (see https://en.cppreference.com/w/Cppreference:FAQ).

Comment 3 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-04-11 07:58:41 UTC
Ah, the link is https://en.cppreference.com/w/Cppreference:FAQ#What_can_I_do_with_the_material_on_this_site.3F
Please add that in a comment in the spec file.

So this looks all good, but the license should *not* include MIT
[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field]:
> The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm.

I'd suggest %autorelease+%autochangelog to reduce the maintenance burden:
https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/opting-in.html

Comment 4 Mohamed Akram 2022-04-11 11:23:58 UTC
Ah, I was wondering about that. Should I also remove the %license from the files?

Comment 5 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-04-11 12:49:32 UTC
Yes.

Comment 6 Mohamed Akram 2022-04-11 14:49:17 UTC
Cool, I updated the files with the changes.

Comment 7 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-04-11 17:50:24 UTC
+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable (GFDL and CC-BY-SA)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds and installs OK
+ latest version
+ R/P/BR look OK

rpmlint complains that there's a number of identical files. Certain files are copied even 5 times.
It's not a big deal: the whole package is 4 MB. If you wanted to fix this, it'd be possible to either
use symlinks, or to replace the content in duplicate files with '.so <name-of-the-real-file>'.
But it's probably not worth the trouble.

Package is APPROVED.

Comment 8 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-04-11 18:52:57 UTC
Maybe the following:

BuildRequires:  jdupes

%prep:
...
sed -i /gzip/d do_install

%install:
...
jdupes -r -l %{buildroot}%{_mandir}

This has also the advantage that the distro compression settings are used.
gzip is now used by default, but I think we'll be switching to zstd at some point.

Comment 9 Package Review 2023-03-18 12:22:56 UTC
Package repository was never requested, resetting fedora-review flag.

Comment 10 Package Review 2024-03-18 00:45:29 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Comment 11 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2024-03-18 13:07:10 UTC
I can re-review if an update is submitted.


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