Bug 2367133

If the static library is needed, can it be put in a separate subpackage?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries

The first part of the soname should not be globbed
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1)
> If the static library is needed, can it be put in a separate subpackage?
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_packaging_static_libraries

It's needed for some of the FPGA pieces, I put it in the devel package because it's used when building those, so basically in conjunction with the include files, so I didn't see what value a separate subpackage provided.

> The first part of the soname should not be globbed
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries

Ah, yes, I meant to fix that before I pushed it, I used it in the early packaging while I was working out all the bits, will fix.

Hey Benson, any followup?

(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #2)
> (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1)
> > If the static library is needed, can it be put in a separate subpackage?
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> > #_packaging_static_libraries
> 
> It's needed for some of the FPGA pieces, I put it in the devel package
> because it's used when building those, so basically in conjunction with the
> include files, so I didn't see what value a separate subpackage provided.

Would suggest a static subpackage which can be require the devel package.

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

Also need to add:
Provides: foo-static = %{version}-%{release}

> 
> > The first part of the soname should not be globbed
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
> 
> Ah, yes, I meant to fix that before I pushed it, I used it in the early
> packaging while I was working out all the bits, will fix.

SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libdfx.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libdfx-2024.2.0-2.fc42.src.rpm

> Would suggest a static subpackage which can be require the devel package.

Done
 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_packaging_static_libraries
> 
> Also need to add:
> Provides: foo-static = %{version}-%{release}

That isn't required with the subpackage.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9092344
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367133-libdfx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09092344-libdfx/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

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.

fedora-review -b 2367133
INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 2367133
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 2367133
INFO:   --> SRPM url: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libdfx-2024.2.0-2.fc42.src.rpm
INFO:   --> Spec url: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libdfx.spec
INFO: Using review directory: /home/javier/devel/packages/2367133-libdfx
INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files
INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://github.com/Xilinx/libdfx/archive/v2024.2.0/libdfx-2024.2.0.tar.gz
WARNING: Cannot download url: https://github.com/Xilinx/libdfx/archive/v2024.2.0/libdfx-2024.2.0.tar.gz
INFO: No upstream for (Source0): libdfx-2024.2.0.tar.gz

The correct URL seems to be https://github.com/Xilinx/libdfx/archive/refs/tags/xilinx_v2024.2.tar.gz

Other than that, the package looks good to me.

Reviewing the fedora-review output, the wrong URL is the only issue I found as well:

Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0:
     https://github.com/Xilinx/libdfx/archive/v2024.2.0/libdfx-2024.2.0.tar.gz
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/

Once that is fixed, the package could be approved IMO.

Setting fedora-review+, please fix the source URL before committing the changes.

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

URL fixed, and updated to latest release.

Thanks!