Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpg123.spec SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/mingw-mpg123-1.23.8-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: MinGW MPEG 1.0/2.0/2.5 audio decoder for layers 1, 2 and 3 Fedora Account System Username: yselkowi koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16585225
===================== | !! NON-BINDING !! | | Package Review | ===================== I did this preliminary package review as part of the process of becoming a fedora packager / contributor, so a "real" review is still needed. Regardless, the issues outlined below are still valid problems, IMO. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - mingw{32,64}-filesystem BuildRequires are unversioned (looking at the MinGW Packaging Guidelines and other .spec files it should be ">= 95"). - In contrast to the fedora native mpg123 package, only libraries and no binaries are built - this seems to be intentional (see the "bin_PROGRAMS=" argument to "make"), but no comment regarding why this is the case has been included. - The license specified in the .spec file might not be correct: LGPLv2+ (.spec file) vs. LGPLv2.1 (upstream homepage information), although the fedora native mpg123 package also specifies "LGPLv2+". According to the Licensing wiki page, the "LGPL 2.1 (only)" license should be listed as "LGPLv2". - Lines 22 to 40 of the .spec file are a bit confusing to read (defining und using a seperate %{_description} value, unusual formatting). Ignore the 2 issues below, they don't apply to MinGW packages according to the MinGW Packaging Guidelines. Additionally, all warnings and errors printed by rpmlint (see below) are because of the special way MinGW packages are built and can be ignored as far as I can see. - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: mingw32-mpg123 : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/fmt123.h mingw32-mpg123 : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/mpg123.h mingw32-mpg123 : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/out123.h mingw64-mpg123 : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/fmt123.h mingw64-mpg123 : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/mpg123.h mingw64-mpg123 : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/out123.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: mingw32-mpg123, mingw64-mpg123. Illegal package name: mingw32-mpg123, mingw64-mpg123. Does not provide -static: mingw32-mpg123, mingw64-mpg123. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "LGPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "FSF Unlimited", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF Unlimited GPL", "ISC". 357 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/deca/Workspace/fedora/1398004 -mingw-mpg123/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /home/deca/Workspace/fedora/1398004-mingw-mpg123/upstream- unpacked/Source0/mpg123-1.23.8/ports/MSVC++/CMP3Stream/INCLUDE [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X]: Package does not generate any conflict. [X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-mpg123 , mingw64-mpg123 [?]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: mingw32-mpg123-1.23.8-1.fc25.noarch.rpm mingw64-mpg123-1.23.8-1.fc25.noarch.rpm mingw-mpg123-1.23.8-1.fc25.src.rpm mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin mingw32-mpg123.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libout123.dll.a mingw32-mpg123.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libmpg123.dll.a mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libout123.dll.a mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libout123.dll.a mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libmpg123.dll.a mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libmpg123.dll.a mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/mpg123.h mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/out123.h mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/fmt123.h mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libmpg123.pc mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libout123.pc mingw32-mpg123.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-w64-mingw32 mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin mingw64-mpg123.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libmpg123.dll.a mingw64-mpg123.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libout123.dll.a mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/mpg123.h mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libmpg123.pc mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libout123.pc mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/fmt123.h mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/out123.h mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libmpg123.dll.a mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libmpg123.dll.a mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libout123.dll.a mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libout123.dll.a mingw64-mpg123.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-w64-mingw32 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 22 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- mingw64-mpg123 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(winmm.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config mingw32-mpg123 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(winmm.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config Provides -------- mingw64-mpg123: mingw64(libmpg123-0.dll) mingw64(libout123-0.dll) mingw64-mpg123 mingw32-mpg123: mingw32(libmpg123-0.dll) mingw32(libout123-0.dll) mingw32-mpg123 Source checksums ---------------- http://mpg123.org/download/mpg123-1.23.8.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : de2303c8ecb65593e39815c0a2f2f2d91f708c43b85a55fdd1934c82e677cf8e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de2303c8ecb65593e39815c0a2f2f2d91f708c43b85a55fdd1934c82e677cf8e AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/deca/Workspace/fedora/1398004-mingw-mpg123 /upstream-unpacked/Source0/mpg123-1.23.8/configure.ac:181 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1398004 Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
This message is a reminder that Fedora 25 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 25. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '25'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 25 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
Someone please feel free to adopt and revive this.