Bug 2325835

Summary: Review Request: skia - Rendering library
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Benson Muite <benson_muite>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Phil Wyett <philip.wyett>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: code, mattia.verga, package-review, philip.wyett
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://skia.org
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-04-14 00:45:27 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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8250000 to 8250470 none

Description Benson Muite 2024-11-13 04:34:32 UTC
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/skia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08249827-skia/skia.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/skia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08249827-skia/skia-132-1.fc42.src.rpm

description:
Two dimensional graphics engine

fas: fed500

Comment: Still work in progress.  Need to pass appropriate
build flags and possibly build with clang for better performance.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-11-13 04:34:48 UTC
There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/skia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08249827-skia/skia-132-1.fc42.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


---
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.

Comment 2 solomoncyj 2024-11-13 07:30:02 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2024-11-13 07:36:11 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8250000
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2325835-skia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08250000-skia/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2024-11-13 10:52:46 UTC
Created attachment 2057456 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8250000 to 8250470

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2024-11-13 10:52:49 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8250470
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2325835-skia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08250470-skia/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 7 Mattia Verga 2025-08-29 14:19:09 UTC
I'd like to review this. Skia is something that could enhance LibreOffice and I looked into packaging it myself, but I was scared and lost by it's uncommon build system. I see you have done a lot of work and I'd be glad to review it if you consider the current state is enough for being packaged. (but I see there are new releases and a few TODOs in your specfile seem to need to be fixed).
Let me know.

Comment 8 Ben Beasley 2025-09-22 12:02:33 UTC
Are you still working on this? Thanks.

Comment 9 Benson Muite 2025-09-26 10:26:48 UTC
Still of interest.  Will update it.

Comment 10 Phil Wyett 2026-03-14 07:28:13 UTC
Hi,

I will take this one and try move it along.

Review to follow.

Regards

Phil

Comment 11 Phil Wyett 2026-03-14 07:39:27 UTC
Hi,

Can try rectify 'BuildRequires'.

* Ones that are system.
* Ones that should be system.
* Ones that are 'bundled'.

This done in the 'spec' file which make for better discussion later in the review process.

For a package of this complexity, it is wished the tests are run.

Other assistance is welcome.

Regards

Phil

Comment 12 Package Review 2026-04-14 00:45:27 UTC
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.