Bug 2493888

Hi, just two nitpicks:

- Documentation is small enough to be included in the -devel subpackage.
- Upstream provides signatures[1][2] for source releases. Consider verifying them with %{gpgverify}[3] 
 
[1] https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL_net/releases/download/release-3.2.0/SDL3_net-3.2.0.tar.gz.sig
[2] https://www.libsdl.org/signing-keys.php
[3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures

Otherwise, looks good to me.


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

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


===== 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.
[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 or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: %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]: 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: SDL3_net-3.2.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          SDL3_net-devel-3.2.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          SDL3_net-doc-3.2.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          SDL3_net-3.2.0-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpz6pa830w')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

SDL3_net.x86_64: W: no-documentation
SDL3_net-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
SDL3_net.spec: W: no-%check-section
SDL3_net-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency SDL3_net-devel
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 21 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: SDL3_net-debuginfo-3.2.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpny5oe_pg')]
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: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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

SDL3_net.x86_64: W: no-documentation
SDL3_net-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
SDL3_net-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency SDL3_net-devel
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 24 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL_net/archive/release-3.2.0/SDL_net-release-3.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 195036ba82322e03fd3562149634fb582e5e9298ccc6cb2c5e362bf40c5018be
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 195036ba82322e03fd3562149634fb582e5e9298ccc6cb2c5e362bf40c5018be


Requires
--------
SDL3_net (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libSDL3.so.0()(64bit)
    libSDL3.so.0(SDL3_0.0.0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

SDL3_net-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    SDL3_net(x86-64)
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libSDL3_net.so.0()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(sdl3)

SDL3_net-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    SDL3_net-devel



Provides
--------
SDL3_net:
    SDL3_net
    SDL3_net(x86-64)
    libSDL3_net.so.0()(64bit)
    libSDL3_net.so.0(SDL3_net_0.0.0)(64bit)

SDL3_net-devel:
    SDL3_net-devel
    SDL3_net-devel(x86-64)
    cmake(SDL3_net)
    cmake(sdl3_net)
    pkgconfig(sdl3-net)

SDL3_net-doc:
    SDL3_net-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2493888
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Switched to downloading sources from upstream homepage instead of GitHub and added %gpgverify to %prep.
I was a bit reluctant about folding -doc back into -devel, but none of the other SDL* packages have a separate -doc package, so eh, I guess it'll be more consistent this way.

spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_net-3.2.0-2/SDL3_net.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_net-3.2.0-2/SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc44.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147244928

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666335
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2493888-sdl3_net/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666335-SDL3_net/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.

Thanks!

Looks good to me now.

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

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


===== 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.
[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 or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[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]: 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: SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          SDL3_net-devel-3.2.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxq3e4llg')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

SDL3_net.x86_64: W: no-documentation
SDL3_net.spec: W: no-%check-section
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: SDL3_net-debuginfo-3.2.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5g4c56_m')]
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: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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

SDL3_net.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_net/release/SDL3_net-3.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 098522fc26d4e302ef9348aee6e76e67fe504dfefd7f596236568f8330570c41
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 098522fc26d4e302ef9348aee6e76e67fe504dfefd7f596236568f8330570c41
https://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_net/release/SDL3_net-3.2.0.tar.gz.sig :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : beecc16fc302bceacbd1d54e005a2c5fa2872e5beba0e58f74766985f92e9518
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : beecc16fc302bceacbd1d54e005a2c5fa2872e5beba0e58f74766985f92e9518


Requires
--------
SDL3_net (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libSDL3.so.0()(64bit)
    libSDL3.so.0(SDL3_0.0.0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

SDL3_net-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    SDL3_net(x86-64)
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libSDL3_net.so.0()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(sdl3)



Provides
--------
SDL3_net:
    SDL3_net
    SDL3_net(x86-64)
    libSDL3_net.so.0()(64bit)
    libSDL3_net.so.0(SDL3_net_0.0.0)(64bit)

SDL3_net-devel:
    SDL3_net-devel
    SDL3_net-devel(x86-64)
    cmake(SDL3_net)
    cmake(sdl3_net)
    pkgconfig(sdl3-net)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2493888
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, PHP, Python, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/SDL3_net
Monitoring:
Anitya project is accessible by this link 
`https://release-monitoring.org/project/390566`
 you can modify it manually.
Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.

FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad (SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad

FEDORA-2026-733f513122 (SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-733f513122

FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2026-733f513122 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-733f513122 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-733f513122

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad (SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-733f513122 (SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.