Bug 2258335

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6895880
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258335-lsp-dsp-lib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06895880-lsp-dsp-lib/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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

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


===== General comments =====

I see that the library appears to use CPUID or similar to enable code requiring
ISA extensions conditionally at runtime. Unless I missed something, programs
that link this library should be able to run on all supported hosts.

===== Issues =====

- The object files are compiled using the system compiler flags as required by

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

  but it appears that linking does not use the necessary flags:

    ld   [lsp-dsp-lib] lsp-dsp-lib.o
    ld -o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/lsp-dsp-lib.o -r  /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/dsp.o  /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/generic/generic.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/x86.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/sse.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/sse2.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/sse3.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/sse4.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/avx.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/avx2.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/avx512.o
    […]
    g++  [lsp-dsp-lib] liblsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20.so
    g++ -o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/liblsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20.so  /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-common-lib/lsp-common-lib.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-test-fw/lsp-test-fw.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/lsp-dsp-lib.o   -march=x86-64 -m64 -Wl,-z,relro,-z,now -Wl,--gc-sections -shared  -fPIC  -lpthread

  You’ll need to figure out how to ensure that the system linker flags are
  respected as well.

  This also affects your ability to ensure the SONAME is set correctly; see the
  next point.

- Upstream appears to be attempting some kind of SONAME versioning based on the
  version number:

    $ ls -l rpms-unpacked/lsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/
    total 1016
    -rwxr-xr-x. 1 ben ben 1037560 Jan 15 19:00 liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20

  …which could be OK if they are not attempting to guarantee any ABI stability,
  and expect that every patch release may break ABI. However, they are failing
  to actually set the SONAME version; rpmlint shows:

    lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20

  See:

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

  If you know that upstream really does want to set the ABI version with the
  full library version, then you ensure that
    -Wl,-soname,liblsp-dsp-lib.so.%{version}

  is added to the compiler and linker flags.

    export CFLAGS="${CFLAGS-} -Wl,-soname,liblsp-dsp-lib.so.%{version}"
    
  However, if there is any doubt, you should set a SONAME version beginning
  with "0." in order to avoid conflicts with upstream, and of course you should
  name the .so.* file accordingly. See the prescriptions in:

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

  Either way, the guidelines say you MUST try to convince upstream to start
  versioning the shared library properly.

  In any case, I suggest *not* using %{version} when listing the .so file,
  because it makes it too easy to forget that a new version is bumping the
  SONAME version and requires dependent packages to be rebuilt. This isn’t
  explicitly covered by

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

  but I think the same logic applies.

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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 22
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258335-lsp-dsp-lib/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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

     This is OK because the actual build does use a parallelized macro,
     %make_build. You *could* replace:

       make config TEST=1 PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir}

     with

       %make_build config TEST=1 PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir}

     and it would work well, but it’s not really important since the config
     target just runs a single command with nothing to parallelize.

[-]: 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]: Package functions as described.

     (tests pass)

[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111842296

[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]: 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: 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: lsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lsp-dsp-lib-devel-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          lsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpoboipcc1')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20
lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lsp-dsp-lib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpl8ppm7t2')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 4

lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20 /lib64/libstdc++.so.6
lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20
lsp-dsp-lib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 25 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/lsp-plugins/lsp-dsp-lib/releases/download/1.0.20/lsp-dsp-lib-src-1.0.20.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5000ed31aa6c1dbd3cc923acbb46c66975cf540c99e02711402f3404d869a1a4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5000ed31aa6c1dbd3cc923acbb46c66975cf540c99e02711402f3404d869a1a4


Requires
--------
lsp-dsp-lib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

lsp-dsp-lib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    lsp-dsp-lib(x86-64)

lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
lsp-dsp-lib:
    liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20()(64bit)
    lsp-dsp-lib
    lsp-dsp-lib(x86-64)

lsp-dsp-lib-devel:
    lsp-dsp-lib-devel
    lsp-dsp-lib-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(lsp-dsp-lib)

lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo
    lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo(x86-64)

lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource:
    lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource
    lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2258335
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Java, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

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.

It looks like I posted review feedback with some actionable issues, and this was actually waiting on the submitter to (possibly) upload a revised submission.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.