Bug 989752
Summary: | Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Björn 'besser82' Esser <besser82> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | besser82, bioinfornatics, dr.trigon, gwync, ignatenko, lemenkov, massi.ergosum, notting, package-review, ppisar |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | besser82:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-08-10 03:55:09 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: |
Description
Igor Gnatenko
2013-07-29 20:39:31 UTC
I'll take this. ##### Have CC'ed Petr Pisar (ppisar), because he's the maintainer of "old" SDL-branch. Some colab might be helpful on this, I think. SDL2 is in RC state itm. Do you ITP SDL_{image,mixer}2 as well? ##### He goes the first review-run. Issues found. :( ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation ---> What??? Can't find anything java-related in the pkg... Must be a bug in f-r, then. I'll ignore this for now. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ---> rebuild srpm, plz. - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-devel, SDL2-static See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage ---> false-positive (possible bug), are present in arched-form - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ---> nothing java-releated here, see above - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation ---> nothing java-releated here, see above - all files in %doc have wrong end-of-line encoding See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding ---> use sed -i -e's!\r!!g' $file on them, please ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Static libraries in -static 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]: %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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-static ---> is solved by requires devel-subpkg [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues present [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt ---> License tag should be zlib and BSD and GPLv2+ and MIT [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. ---> This will be co-existing with "old" SDL? [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 7 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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 [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). What are these lines about in here? Nothing java-related in src... See comments above. Java: [-]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [-]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. ---> There is a tests-dir in src. Check if theres a check/test target in Makefile, please. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. WTF??? See above. Java: [-]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: SDL2 subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [-]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: SDL2-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2-devel-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2-static-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 _exit.5 SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/BUGS.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/COPYING.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/CREDITS.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/README-SDL.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/TODO.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/README.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/WhatsNew.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config SDL2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint SDL2-devel SDL2-static SDL2 SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/TODO.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/README.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/WhatsNew.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config SDL2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 _exit.5 SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/BUGS.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/COPYING.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/CREDITS.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/README-SDL.txt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- SDL2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pkg-config SDL2(x86-64) alsa-lib-devel libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libX11-devel libXScrnSaver-devel libXext-devel libXi-devel libXrandr-devel libXrender-devel mesa-libEGL-devel mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLES-devel mesa-libGLU-devel SDL2-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SDL2-devel(x86-64) SDL2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- SDL2-devel: SDL2-devel SDL2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(sdl2) SDL2-static: SDL2-static SDL2-static(x86-64) SDL2: SDL2 SDL2(x86-64) libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/release/SDL2-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d701c1899b3de1e697c988e2a38327dfa00bc43fc430e9645d061425fa541c9f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0cd5b73f8d2d723cfdad894df757f378ab84779f49f1c9f7f33059eef201ba48 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 989752 ##### Please fix the issues and I' take another run on it then. I'll report a bug against f-r. I'd like to see Koji scratchbuild logs. Igor in the future please provide link to the Koji build as well. * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a technical rationale behind this? * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a > technical rationale behind this? No. SDL1 use it. > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. this only for rhel (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #4) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > > * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a > > technical rationale behind this? > No. SDL1 use it. That's not a valid reason. So please remove it since we shouldn't encourage static libraries usage and even packaging. > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. > this only for rhel That's not an explanation either. Please disable it. Also you enabled it wrongly so I'm assuming that you didn't test it. That's a bad sign - a maintainer enables things which he doesn't even tests. *** Bug 848144 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #1) > I'll take this. > > ##### > > Have CC'ed Petr Pisar (ppisar), because he's the maintainer of "old" > SDL-branch. Some colab might be helpful on this, I think. > > SDL2 is in RC state itm. Do you ITP SDL_{image,mixer}2 as well? http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/download-2.0.php SDL version 2.0.0 (stable) > > ##### > > He goes the first review-run. Issues found. :( > > ##### > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) > Note: No javadoc subpackage present > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation > > ---> What??? Can't find anything java-related in the pkg... > Must be a bug in f-r, then. I'll ignore this for now. > > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in > the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/diff.txt > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL > > ---> rebuild srpm, plz. Really. He updates release tar.gz w/o changes in version. WTF? > > - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-devel, > SDL2-static > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage > > ---> false-positive (possible bug), are present in arched-form > > - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java > > ---> nothing java-releated here, see above > > - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc > subpackage > Note: No javadoc subpackage present > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation > > ---> nothing java-releated here, see above > > - all files in %doc have wrong end-of-line encoding > See: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line- > encoding > > ---> use sed -i -e's!\r!!g' $file on them, please fixed > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x]: Static libraries in -static 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]: %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. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > SDL2-static > > ---> is solved by requires devel-subpkg > > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > ---> issues present > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or > generated", "zlib/libpng". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in > /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt > > ---> License tag should be zlib and BSD and GPLv2+ and MIT fixed > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. > > ---> This will be co-existing with "old" SDL? yes. we should to support SDL and SDL2 simultaneously > > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [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. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 7 files. > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [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 %doc. > [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist > [x]: Package is not relocatable. > [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 > [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). > > What are these lines about in here? Nothing java-related in src... > See comments above. > > Java: > [-]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build > > Maven: > [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even > when building with ant > [-]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used > > ===== 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. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > ---> There is a tests-dir in src. Check if theres a check/test > target in Makefile, please. for check we should to have installed SDL2, but in chroot we don't have it > > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [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]: Dist tag is present. > [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [x]: Uses parallel make. > [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > > WTF??? See above. > > Java: > [-]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI > Note: SDL2 subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually > [-]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: SDL2-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm > SDL2-devel-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm > SDL2-static-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm > SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 > _exit.5 > SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/BUGS.txt > SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2/COPYING.txt > SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2/CREDITS.txt > SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2/README-SDL.txt > SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/TODO.txt > SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/README.txt > SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/WhatsNew.txt > SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config > SDL2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint SDL2-devel SDL2-static SDL2 > SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/TODO.txt > SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/README.txt > SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/WhatsNew.txt > SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config > SDL2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 > _exit.5 > SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/BUGS.txt > SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2/COPYING.txt > SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2/CREDITS.txt > SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/SDL2/README-SDL.txt > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > SDL2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /bin/sh > /usr/bin/pkg-config > SDL2(x86-64) > alsa-lib-devel > libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > libX11-devel > libXScrnSaver-devel > libXext-devel > libXi-devel > libXrandr-devel > libXrender-devel > mesa-libEGL-devel > mesa-libGL-devel > mesa-libGLES-devel > mesa-libGLU-devel > > SDL2-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > SDL2-devel(x86-64) > > SDL2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /sbin/ldconfig > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libdl.so.2()(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > libpthread.so.0()(64bit) > librt.so.1()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > > > Provides > -------- > SDL2-devel: > SDL2-devel > SDL2-devel(x86-64) > pkgconfig(sdl2) > > SDL2-static: > SDL2-static > SDL2-static(x86-64) > > SDL2: > SDL2 > SDL2(x86-64) > libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/release/SDL2-2.0.0.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > d701c1899b3de1e697c988e2a38327dfa00bc43fc430e9645d061425fa541c9f > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 0cd5b73f8d2d723cfdad894df757f378ab84779f49f1c9f7f33059eef201ba48 > diff -r also reports differences > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 989752 > > ##### > > Please fix the issues and I' take another run on it then. I'll report a bug > against f-r. new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2.spec new SRPM:http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc1.fc19.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5676929 (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. I propose not to package SDL2 at all. Less packages we have less bugs the distribution contains. (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #8) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. > > I propose not to package SDL2 at all. Less packages we have less bugs the > distribution contains. This is some kind of ironic, isn't it? Update! Changelog included. spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2.spec srpm: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc2.fc19.src.rpm Still two minor issues. You can fix on SCM-import :) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must own all directories that it creates. See in report below. - Proper License-breakdown. See in report below. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ---> yum provides */$srcfile doesn't report any file to be provided from another package. Nothing bundled, I think. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> two small issues: License and owned-dirs need fix on SCM-import [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 125 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt ---> My bad... You should drop BSD and GPLv2+ First is from testsuite and latter from included libtool But you need to keep MIT; it's from sources [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. ---> devel doesn't own '%{_datadir}/aclocal' change '%{_datadir}/aclocal/*' to '%{_datadir}/aclocal' and all is fine. It's common on 28 other devel-pkgs to own this dir, See: `yum provides */aclocal/` [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 7 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2-devel-2.0.0-1.rc2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 _exit.5 SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint SDL2-devel SDL2 SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 _exit.5 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- SDL2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pkg-config SDL2(x86-64) alsa-lib-devel libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libX11-devel libXScrnSaver-devel libXext-devel libXi-devel libXrandr-devel libXrender-devel mesa-libEGL-devel mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLES-devel mesa-libGLU-devel SDL2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- SDL2-devel: SDL2-devel SDL2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(sdl2) SDL2: SDL2 SDL2(x86-64) libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/release/SDL2-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0cd5b73f8d2d723cfdad894df757f378ab84779f49f1c9f7f33059eef201ba48 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0cd5b73f8d2d723cfdad894df757f378ab84779f49f1c9f7f33059eef201ba48 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 989752 ##### Everything else is fine here. Please fix the issues on SCM-import. Утвержденных! ;) APPROVED! (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #11) > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > ---> devel doesn't own '%{_datadir}/aclocal' > change '%{_datadir}/aclocal/*' to '%{_datadir}/aclocal' > and all is fine. It's common on 28 other devel-pkgs to > own this dir, See: `yum provides */aclocal/` Sorry my bad ;) Pkg must not own this dir! It's owned by filesystem already and avail on every system. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: SDL2 Short Description: A cross-platform multimedia library Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: f19 spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2.spec srpm: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19.src.rpm Git done (by process-git-requests). What's the solution for the missing dependencies for the dlopen'ed shared libs? Has that changed in any way? bug 848144 comment 8 SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #16) > What's the solution for the missing dependencies for the dlopen'ed shared > libs? Has that changed in any way? bug 848144 comment 8 Those are week dependencies and intended behaviour. SDL supports multiple outputs. E.g. you don't need any X11, you can run SDL application on framebuffer console. Or you can have even non-graphical SDL application (e.g. there is a joystick calibration application somewhere in kbd---pure virtual terminal thing). Thus there should not be any RPM dependency on X11 libraries or similar. Hmm, then it'll be the package maintainer's job to ensure that those sonames match what's provided in the package collection and that they don't change during a release. Probably not a problem with X11, but I haven't checked what other libs are opened. Related to bug 990677. SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. |