Bug 2328509

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8306960
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2328509-opencomposite/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08306960-opencomposite/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
[ ] = Manual review needed



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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: 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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause
     License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later and/or MIT
     License", "MIT License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Apache License
     2.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative
     Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "zlib
     License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License
     and/or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or MIT License", "*No
     copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative
     Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Khronos License", "SIL Open Font
     License 1.1", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 442 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/opencomposite/2328509-opencomposite/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/opencomposite/runtime/bin,
     /usr/lib64/opencomposite/runtime/bin/linux64,
     /usr/lib64/opencomposite/runtime
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/lib64/opencomposite/runtime,
     /usr/lib64/opencomposite/runtime/bin,
     /usr/lib64/opencomposite/runtime/bin/linux64
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 18337 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: opencomposite-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          opencomposite-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          opencomposite-debugsource-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          opencomposite-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc42.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/tmpmywf52gh')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

opencomposite.src: E: spelling-error ('Reimplementation', 'Summary(en_US) Reimplementation -> Re implementation, Re-implementation, Implementation')
opencomposite.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Reimplementation', 'Summary(en_US) Reimplementation -> Re implementation, Re-implementation, Implementation')
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 6.9 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: opencomposite-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc42.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/tmpuxcd32tu')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.6 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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: 3

opencomposite.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Reimplementation', 'Summary(en_US) Reimplementation -> Re implementation, Re-implementation, Implementation')
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 11.8 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
opencomposite: /usr/lib64/opencomposite/runtime/bin/linux64/vrclient.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenXR-SDK/archive/91a8a8d9d70f4b469bca0726122c3b5a6096010e/openxr-sdk-91a8a8d9d70f4b469bca0726122c3b5a6096010e.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3b615f994adfa6184c6ff3b1b6af24965048ea1ddd3c3cf15c2b042282e74c05
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b615f994adfa6184c6ff3b1b6af24965048ea1ddd3c3cf15c2b042282e74c05
https://gitlab.com/znixian/OpenOVR/-/archive/34311dabf430d6051d7e97f6081842a5394d2a67/OpenOVR-34311dabf430d6051d7e97f6081842a5394d2a67.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : da48d1409ff162f1ca27875b8d9e288590ff4eebff9e37066d8c264a35a5f63d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : da48d1409ff162f1ca27875b8d9e288590ff4eebff9e37066d8c264a35a5f63d


Requires
--------
opencomposite (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libGLX.so.0()(64bit)
    libOpenGL.so.0()(64bit)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libvulkan.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

opencomposite-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

opencomposite-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
opencomposite:
    bundled(openxr)
    opencomposite
    opencomposite(x86-64)

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

opencomposite-debugsource:
    opencomposite-debugsource
    opencomposite-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2328509
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Python, Ocaml, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


Comments:
a) Perhaps try and get upstream to use newer version of openxr so that bundling is not needed.
b) Does not build on i686
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126211932
Failure in build log is
+ install -Dpm0755 -t /builddir/build/BUILD/opencomposite-0.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/opencomposite/runtime/bin/linux64 'redhat-linux-build/bin/*/vrclient.so'
install: cannot stat 'redhat-linux-build/bin/*/vrclient.so': No such file or directory

The build step shows
bin/vrclient.so
is created, but on x86_64
bin/linux64/vrclient.so
is created, so adjust the install step appropriately.
c) Please add
%dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/runtime
%dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/runtime/bin
%dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/runtime/bin/linux64

to the specfile and appropriate modifications for other architectures to ensure directories are owned.

Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/opencomposite.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/opencomposite-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc40/opencomposite-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc41.src.rpm

Changelog:

* Support ix86 builds
* Own directories correctly


Regarding the OpenXR upgrade... I filed a bug https://gitlab.com/znixian/OpenOVR/-/issues/437 but this will be a long process, if it's possible at all with the available contributor resources. I suggest we go with what is working and I'll keep after upstreams (opencomposite, steam-runtime, etc.) to get building against system OpenXR working well.

Created attachment 2059637 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8306960 to 8308539

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8308539
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2328509-opencomposite/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08308539-opencomposite/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.

Builds successfully:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126250800

Approved.

Review of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328488
would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.

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

FEDORA-2024-04fe51d2e9 (opencomposite-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-04fe51d2e9

FEDORA-2024-04fe51d2e9 (opencomposite-0.0.1-1.20241111git34311da.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.