Bug 1858419

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47365092

> Name:       libavif
> Version:    0.8.0
> Release:    1%{?dist}
> Summary:    Library for encoding and decoding .avif files

> License:    BSD

I would indicate which version of the BSD license it is. `fedora-review` reports BSDv2 mostly.

> %files devel
> %doc examples/
> %{_includedir}/avif
> %{_libdir}/libavif.so
> %{_libdir}/cmake/libavif
> %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libavif.pc

The -devel package should probably include the license as well.

> %package      -n avif-tools
> Summary:         Tools to encode and decode AVIF files

> %description  -n avif-tools
> Tools to encode and decode AVIF files.

> %package     -n avif-pixbuf-loader
> Summary:        AVIF image loader for GTK+ applications
> BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(gdk-pixbuf-2.0)
> Requires:       gdk-pixbuf2

Should the sub-packages not explicitly depend on the main package with %{version} restrictions?

> %files -n avif-pixbuf-loader
> %license LICENSE
> %{_libdir}/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/*/loaders/libpixbufloader-avif.so

Should this shared object not be versioned?


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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libavif
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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]: 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.

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", "Expat License BSD 2-clause
     "Simplified" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat
     License". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/amender/fedora-
     scm/1858419-libavif/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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
[?]: 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 61440 bytes in 3 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in avif-
     tools , avif-pixbuf-loader
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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.
[-]: 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: libavif-0.8.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          libavif-devel-0.8.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          avif-tools-0.8.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          avif-pixbuf-loader-0.8.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          libavif-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          libavif-debugsource-0.8.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          libavif-0.8.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
libavif.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) avif -> avid, av if, av-if
avif-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
avif-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary avifdec
avif-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary avifenc
avif-pixbuf-loader.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libavif.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) avif -> avid, av if, av-if
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libavif-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
libavif-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
avif-tools.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
avif-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
avif-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary avifdec
avif-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary avifenc
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
libavif-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
libavif-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
avif-pixbuf-loader.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
avif-pixbuf-loader.x86_64: W: no-documentation
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
libavif.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) avif -> avid, av if, av-if
libavif.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
avif-pixbuf-loader: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-avif.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif/archive/v0.8.0/libavif-0.8.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c917f4a27add61b8ad15f328090942d519460b71219f31e60e5fe6aa8cf3dc4e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c917f4a27add61b8ad15f328090942d519460b71219f31e60e5fe6aa8cf3dc4e


Requires
--------
libavif (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libaom.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdav1d.so.4()(64bit)
    librav1e.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libavif-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libavif(x86-64)
    libavif.so.5()(64bit)

avif-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libavif.so.5()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62()(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

avif-pixbuf-loader (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gdk-pixbuf2
    libavif.so.5()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libavif-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libavif-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libavif:
    libavif
    libavif(x86-64)
    libavif.so.5()(64bit)

libavif-devel:
    cmake(libavif)
    libavif-devel
    libavif-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libavif)

avif-tools:
    avif-tools
    avif-tools(x86-64)

avif-pixbuf-loader:
    avif-pixbuf-loader
    avif-pixbuf-loader(x86-64)
    libpixbufloader-avif.so()(64bit)

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

libavif-debugsource:
    libavif-debugsource
    libavif-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1858419
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Haskell, Java, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
> > Name:       libavif
> > Version:    0.8.0
> > Release:    1%{?dist}
> > Summary:    Library for encoding and decoding .avif files
> 
> > License:    BSD
> 
> I would indicate which version of the BSD license it is. `fedora-review`
> reports BSDv2 mostly.

We don't version the BSD license in Fedora. We have that list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses where you can see what shorthand to use for any "good" licence.

> 
> > %files devel
> > %doc examples/
> > %{_includedir}/avif
> > %{_libdir}/libavif.so
> > %{_libdir}/cmake/libavif
> > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libavif.pc
> 
> The -devel package should probably include the license as well.

The -devel subpackage depends on the main package, therefore it is not needed to reinclude the license. The license must be included once per package combination.

> 
> > %package      -n avif-tools
> > Summary:         Tools to encode and decode AVIF files
> 
> > %description  -n avif-tools
> > Tools to encode and decode AVIF files.
> 
> > %package     -n avif-pixbuf-loader
> > Summary:        AVIF image loader for GTK+ applications
> > BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(gdk-pixbuf-2.0)
> > Requires:       gdk-pixbuf2
> 
> Should the sub-packages not explicitly depend on the main package with
> %{version} restrictions?
> 
Both packages contain binaries that are linked to libavif versioned library, so it will be autodetected by RPM dependency manager. I could explicitly Requires it if needed.

> > %files -n avif-pixbuf-loader
> > %license LICENSE
> > %{_libdir}/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/*/loaders/libpixbufloader-avif.so
> 
> Should this shared object not be versioned?
> 

No, this is a plugin in a private directory, versioning only applies to libraries in the libdir top level directory.

> 
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
>   Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
>   https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libavif
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
> 
> 

Apparently this is already packaged but I didn't notice it. Sorry.