Bug 2276294

Summary:	Review Request: tinygltf - Header only C++11 tiny glTF 2.0 library
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Davide Cavalca <davide>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	jonathansteffan, package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	jonathansteffan: fedora-review+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2025-03-31 00:39:53 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Davide Cavalca 2024-04-21 15:24:48 UTC

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tinygltf/tinygltf.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tinygltf/tinygltf-2.8.21-1.fc41.src.rpm

Description:
TinyGLTF is a header only C++11 glTF 2.0 library.

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca

Comment 1 Davide Cavalca 2024-04-21 15:24:51 UTC

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=116688679

Comment 2 Jonathan Steffan 2024-05-06 00:54:05 UTC

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

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



===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "Boost Software License
     1.0 and/or MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 54 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jon/Reviews/tinygltf/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/cmake
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 12315 bytes in 1 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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:
[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).
[xdg]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     tinygltf-devel , tinygltf-examples
[?]: 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.
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tinygltf-devel-2.8.21-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-examples-2.8.21-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-debugsource-2.8.21-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-2.8.21-1.fc41.src.rpm
=============================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp677kyb34')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

tinygltf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tinygltf_loader_example
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
========= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==========




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: tinygltf-examples-debuginfo-2.8.21-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
=============================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsbgh5qbn')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 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

tinygltf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tinygltf_loader_example
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/syoyo/tinygltf/archive/v2.8.21/tinygltf-2.8.21.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e567257d7addde58b0a483832cbaa5dd8f15e5bcaee6f023831e215d1a2c0502
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e567257d7addde58b0a483832cbaa5dd8f15e5bcaee6f023831e215d1a2c0502


Requires
--------
tinygltf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

tinygltf-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

tinygltf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
tinygltf-devel:
    tinygltf-devel
    tinygltf-devel(x86-64)
    tinygltf-static

tinygltf-examples:
    tinygltf-examples
    tinygltf-examples(x86-64)

tinygltf-debugsource:
    tinygltf-debugsource
    tinygltf-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n tinygltf-2.8.21-1.fc41.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, Python, Perl, Java, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 3 Jonathan Steffan 2024-05-06 00:59:51 UTC

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "Boost Software License
     1.0 and/or MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 54 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in

BSD-3-Clause for cpplint

The other licenses seem to fall to the tests and you've patched inline to use system libs.

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
     
cmake-filesystem

[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

What about deps/cpplint.py?

[!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.

What about tools/windows/premake5.exe?

[xdg]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     tinygltf-devel , tinygltf-examples

Auto-complete fail, this is good.

Comment 4 Davide Cavalca 2025-03-30 15:50:53 UTC

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tinygltf/tinygltf.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tinygltf/tinygltf-2.9.5-1.fc43.src.rpm

Changelog:
- new upstream release
- drop more bundled stuff
- add missing Requires

Comment 5 Jonathan Steffan 2025-03-30 17:34:17 UTC

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

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



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

C/C++:
[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "MIT License", "Boost Software License
     1.0 and/or MIT License". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/tinygltf/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
[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 12682 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     tinygltf-devel , tinygltf-examples
[?]: 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.
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tinygltf-devel-2.9.5-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-examples-2.9.5-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-debugsource-2.9.5-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-2.9.5-1.fc43.src.rpm
=============================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw86fgbo0')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

tinygltf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tinygltf_loader_example
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
========= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==========




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: tinygltf-examples-debuginfo-2.9.5-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
=============================================== 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgg6y5tl5')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==========





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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

tinygltf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tinygltf_loader_example
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/syoyo/tinygltf/archive/v2.9.5/tinygltf-2.9.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7b93da27c524dd17179a0eeba6f432b0060d82f6222630ba027c219ce11e24db
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b93da27c524dd17179a0eeba6f432b0060d82f6222630ba027c219ce11e24db


Requires
--------
tinygltf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)

tinygltf-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

tinygltf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
tinygltf-devel:
    cmake(TinyGLTF)
    cmake(tinygltf)
    tinygltf-devel
    tinygltf-devel(x86-64)
    tinygltf-static

tinygltf-examples:
    tinygltf-examples
    tinygltf-examples(x86-64)

tinygltf-debugsource:
    tinygltf-debugsource
    tinygltf-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n tinygltf-2.9.5-1.fc43.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, R, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 6 Jonathan Steffan 2025-03-30 17:35:30 UTC

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

Examples can be installed without LICENSE.

[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     tinygltf-devel , tinygltf-examples

Update Requires to match this. Will also fix LICENSE issues.

Comment 7 Jonathan Steffan 2025-03-30 17:36:14 UTC

Fix the minor stuff in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294#c6 and APPROVED.

Comment 8 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-03-31 00:23:16 UTC

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tinygltf

Comment 9 Davide Cavalca 2025-03-31 00:26:34 UTC

(In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #6)
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> 
> Examples can be installed without LICENSE.
> 
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>      Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
>      tinygltf-devel , tinygltf-examples
> 
> Update Requires to match this. Will also fix LICENSE issues.

This source package only produces two binary packages, -devel and -examples, and they both include the LICENSE. This is a header-only library, so there's no actual library package.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2025-03-31 00:37:21 UTC

FEDORA-2025-3cc90722fd (tinygltf-2.9.5-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3cc90722fd

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2025-03-31 00:39:53 UTC

FEDORA-2025-3cc90722fd (tinygltf-2.9.5-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.