Bug 2367629
| Summary: | Review Request: sndio - Portable audio & MIDI framework from OpenBSD | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tim Wendt <techtasie> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Benson Muite <benson_muite> |
| Status: | ASSIGNED --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | benson_muite, lrossett, package-review, thofmann |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | AutomationTriaged |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | benson_muite:
fedora-review?
|
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://sndio.org/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 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: | 177841 | ||
| Attachments: | |||
|
Description
Tim Wendt
2025-05-20 18:24:04 UTC
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9066973 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367629-sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09066973-sndio/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd service file(s) in sndio-sndiod Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets 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. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067006-sndio/sndio.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067006-sndio/sndio-1.10.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Created attachment 2090929 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9066973 to 9067021
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9067021 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367629-sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067021-sndio/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Systemd service file(s) in sndio-sndiod Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets 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. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067136-sndio/sndio.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067136-sndio/sndio-1.10.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Created attachment 2090938 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9067021 to 9067159
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9067159 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367629-sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067159-sndio/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. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067373-sndio/sndio.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067373-sndio/sndio-1.10.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Created attachment 2090942 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9067159 to 9067387
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9067387 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367629-sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09067387-sndio/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. You could replace direct invocations of "make' and "configure" but their macro alternatives, examples: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_2_GNU_Hello/#inside_spec I see there are optional build requirements for OSS4 support, it may be a good idea to add a variable that in the spec file, something like "with_oss4" to indicate if those should be included or not. Please add first part of soname to library listing https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_soname_handling Usually changelog follows file listings. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09077009-sndio/sndio.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09077009-sndio/sndio-1.10.0-1.fc43.src.rpm I tried using the configure macro, but I get the following error: ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux --host=x86_64-redhat-linux --program-prefix= --disable-dependency-tracking --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/bin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib64 --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info Usage: configure [options] --prefix=DIR set arch independent install prefix to DIR [/usr/local] --exec-prefix=DIR set arch dependent install prefix to DIR [$prefix] --bindir=DIR install executables in DIR [$exec_prefix/bin] --datadir=DIR install read-only data in DIR [$prefix/share] --includedir=DIR install header files in DIR [$prefix/include] --libdir=DIR install libraries in DIR [$exec_prefix/lib] --pkgconfdir=DIR install pkg-config file in DIR [$libdir/pkgconfig] --mandir=DIR install man pages in DIR [$prefix/man] --precision=NUMBER default sndiod device bit-depth [16] --privsep-user=USER non-privileged user for sndio daemon [sndiod] --enable-alsa enable ALSA audio & MIDI backends [yes] --disable-alsa disable ALSA audio & MIDI backends --enable-sun enable Sun audio backend [no] --disable-sun disable Sun audio backend --enable-rmidi enable character device MIDI backend [no] --disable-rmidi disable character device MIDI backend --enable-umidi enable USB-MIDI backend [no] --disable-umidi disable USB-MIDI backend --enable-dynamic build the dynamic library [yes] --enable-static build the static library [no] --with-libbsd use libbsd rather than bsd-compat/* --without-libbsd don't use libbsd --default-dev=DEV set default device [] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.NCjLpk (%build) So I decided to just copy over all the available options and set them manually. But you are totally right about the `make` part. Regarding OSS4: it seems that it auto-configures OSS4 when available, but since OSS4 is not packaged on Fedora, I would argue against a `with_oss4` flag. The comment I had in there was just a leftover from before I realized that OSS4 is not available on Fedora. I changed the changelog position and added the symlink for the soname. I am currently unsure how to handle the dividing into packages, since I realized that the base package is empty. Should I make it a meta-package that just depends on all sub-packages, should I move the tools into it, or should I drop it completely? I haven't found anything about that in the packaging guidelines. Created attachment 2091375 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9067387 to 9077019
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9077019 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367629-sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09077019-sndio/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. %files libs
%license LICENSE
%{_libdir}/libsndio.so.*
should have soname not just a glob in %{_libdir}/libsndio.so.*
%{_libdir}/libsndio.so
is in both libs and devel packages, it should only be in the
devel package
> I changed the changelog position and added the symlink for the soname.
The first part of the soname should be included in the files listing.
> I am currently unsure how to handle the dividing into packages, since
> I realized that the base package is empty. Should I make it a meta-package
> that just depends on all sub-packages, should I move the tools into it, or
> should I drop it completely? I haven't found anything about that in the
> packaging guidelines.
You can add a meta-package if you think it would be helpful, but it is not
necessary.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09077073-sndio/sndio.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09077073-sndio/sndio-1.10.0-1.fc43.src.rpm > The first part of the soname should be included in the files listing. Ah okay got it! > You can add a meta-package if you think it would be helpful, but it is not I think it's helpful since most sndio usage will probably involve the daemon, library, and client together. Created attachment 2091376 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9077019 to 9077083
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9077083 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367629-sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09077083-sndio/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++:
[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: "ISC License", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora-packaging/reviews/sndio/2367629-sndio/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.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in sndio-sndiod
[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:
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sndio-
libs , sndio-devel , sndio-tools , sndio-sndiod
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[!]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[ ]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[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]: 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: sndio-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-libs-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-devel-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-tools-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-sndiod-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-1.10.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5nprd75u')]
checks: 32, packages: 6
sndio.x86_64: W: no-documentation
sndio.x86_64: E: no-binary
sndio-sndiod.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
sndio.x86_64: E: devel-dependency sndio-devel
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 37 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: sndio-libs-debuginfo-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-sndiod-debuginfo-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-tools-debuginfo-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-debuginfo-1.10.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp93geq1ic')]
checks: 32, packages: 4
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 29 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
============================ 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: 9
sndio.x86_64: W: no-documentation
sndio.x86_64: E: no-binary
sndio-sndiod.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
sndio.x86_64: E: devel-dependency sndio-devel
9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 67 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://sndio.org/sndio-1.10.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bebd3bfd01c50c9376cf3e7814b9379bed9e17d0393b5113b7eb7a3d0d038c54
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bebd3bfd01c50c9376cf3e7814b9379bed9e17d0393b5113b7eb7a3d0d038c54
Requires
--------
sndio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
sndio-devel
sndio-libs
sndio-sndiod
sndio-tools
sndio-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libasound.so.2()(64bit)
libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit)
libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.0)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
sndio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libsndio.so.7()(64bit)
sndio-libs
sndio-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libsndio.so.7()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
sndio-libs
sndio-sndiod (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
config(sndio-sndiod)
libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libsndio.so.7()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
sndio-libs
Provides
--------
sndio:
sndio
sndio(x86-64)
sndio-libs:
libsndio.so.7()(64bit)
sndio-libs
sndio-libs(x86-64)
sndio-devel:
pkgconfig(sndio)
sndio-devel
sndio-devel(x86-64)
sndio-tools:
sndio-tools
sndio-tools(x86-64)
sndio-sndiod:
config(sndio-sndiod)
sndio-sndiod
sndio-sndiod(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2367629
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments:
a) Metapackage does not need a separate license file as it will contain the license file
from libs package
b) Metapackage should probably not need the devel package.
c) Build warnings that you may want to send upstream:
sndiod.c:664:38: warning: ‘/sock’ directive output may be truncated writing 5 bytes into a region of size between 1 and 41 [-Wformat
-truncation=]
664 | snprintf(path, SOCKPATH_MAX, "%s/" SOCKPATH_FILE "%u", base, unit);
| ^~~~~
sndiod.c:664:41: note: format string is defined here
664 | snprintf(path, SOCKPATH_MAX, "%s/" SOCKPATH_FILE "%u", base, unit);
sndiod.c:664:38: note: using the range [0, 4294967295] for directive argument
664 | snprintf(path, SOCKPATH_MAX, "%s/" SOCKPATH_FILE "%u", base, unit);
| ^~~~~
In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:970,
from sndiod.c:30:
In function ‘snprintf’,
inlined from ‘main’ at sndiod.c:664:2:
/usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:68:10: note: ‘__snprintf_chk’ output between 7 and 56 bytes into a destination of size 41
68 | return __builtin___snprintf_chk (__s, __n, __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL - 1,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
69 | __glibc_objsize (__s), __fmt,
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
70 | __va_arg_pack ());
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sock.c: In function ‘sock_execmsg’:
sock.c:1173:66: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of ‘abuf_wgetblk’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
1173 | data = abuf_wgetblk(&s->mix.buf, &size);
| ^~~~~
| |
| unsigned int *
In file included from sock.c:27:
abuf.h:31:44: note: expected ‘int *’ but argument is of type ‘unsigned int *’
31 | unsigned char *abuf_wgetblk(struct abuf *, int *);
| ^~~~~
d) Builds on all architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=133223759
e) Upstream publishes a signature:
https://sndio.org/
Can this be checked? See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09100658-sndio/sndio.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/techtasie/sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09100658-sndio/sndio-1.10.0-3.fc43.src.rpm >a) Metapackage does not need a separate license file as it will contain the license file from libs package Thanks for the hint. I removed it. >b) Metapackage should probably not need the devel package. I renamed it to libs-devel because it contains the header for the library. >c) Build warnings that you may want to send upstream: I will do that. >e) Upstream publishes a signature: I added the verification. Created attachment 2092142 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9077083 to 9100666
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9100666 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2367629-sndio/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09100666-sndio/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++:
[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: "ISC License", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora-packaging/reviews/sndio/2367629-
sndio/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.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in sndio-sndiod
[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:
[-]: 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 sndio-
libs , sndio-libs-devel , sndio-tools , sndio-sndiod
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[ ]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[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: sndio-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-libs-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-libs-devel-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-tools-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-sndiod-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-1.10.0-3.fc43.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpkujzkxyz')]
checks: 32, packages: 6
sndio.x86_64: W: no-documentation
sndio.x86_64: E: no-binary
sndio.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.10.0-1 ['1.10.0-3.fc43', '1.10.0-3']
sndio-sndiod.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
sndio.x86_64: E: devel-dependency sndio-libs-devel
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 37 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: sndio-sndiod-debuginfo-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-libs-debuginfo-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-tools-debuginfo-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
sndio-debuginfo-1.10.0-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvd2qyupo')]
checks: 32, packages: 4
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 29 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
/bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.14/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: 9
sndio.x86_64: W: no-documentation
sndio.x86_64: E: no-binary
sndio.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.10.0-1 ['1.10.0-3.fc43', '1.10.0-3']
sndio-sndiod.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
sndio.x86_64: E: devel-dependency sndio-libs-devel
9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 66 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.6 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://caoua.org/alex/pgp-key.txt :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : beae5a378143ef56af2f6d4d006f195f50007f06fbcde6be4fcfc6761ebef110
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : beae5a378143ef56af2f6d4d006f195f50007f06fbcde6be4fcfc6761ebef110
https://sndio.org/sndio-1.10.0.tar.gz.asc :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e11d306e05adcbf8295b05f0581309e65ec7ddf33c498d1674b7f596fb404122
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e11d306e05adcbf8295b05f0581309e65ec7ddf33c498d1674b7f596fb404122
https://sndio.org/sndio-1.10.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bebd3bfd01c50c9376cf3e7814b9379bed9e17d0393b5113b7eb7a3d0d038c54
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bebd3bfd01c50c9376cf3e7814b9379bed9e17d0393b5113b7eb7a3d0d038c54
Requires
--------
sndio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
sndio-libs
sndio-libs-devel
sndio-sndiod
sndio-tools
sndio-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libasound.so.2()(64bit)
libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit)
libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.0)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
sndio-libs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libsndio.so.7()(64bit)
sndio-libs
sndio-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libsndio.so.7()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
sndio-libs
sndio-sndiod (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
config(sndio-sndiod)
libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libsndio.so.7()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
sndio-libs
Provides
--------
sndio:
sndio
sndio(x86-64)
sndio-libs:
libsndio.so.7()(64bit)
sndio-libs
sndio-libs(x86-64)
sndio-libs-devel:
pkgconfig(sndio)
sndio-libs-devel
sndio-libs-devel(x86-64)
sndio-tools:
sndio-tools
sndio-tools(x86-64)
sndio-sndiod:
config(sndio-sndiod)
sndio-sndiod
sndio-sndiod(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2367629
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, Perl, PHP, Haskell, R, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134594496
b) Consider using %autochangelog and %autorelease macros as current changelog entry does not match
release version
c) Please change
Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-libs-devel = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-tools = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-sndiod = %{version}-%{release}
to
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-libs-devel%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-tools%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name}-sndiod%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
d) Consider enabling rmidi and umidi in the configure step.
*** Bug 2374945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |