Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libyami.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libyami-1.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Yet Another Media Infrastructure Fedora Account System Username: kwizart Koji scratch build for f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25238108
Scratch build failed on f28+ Seems like this will need more work... Reported here: https://github.com/intel/libyami/issues/830
English in the %description is a bit broken. >Yami is core building block for media solution. _a_ core. "Solutions" should probably be plural. >it parses video stream "it" should be capitalized (since it's the starting word of a new sentence). "Streams" should probably be plural. >and decodes them leverage hardware acceleration. leveraging, I guess.
Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libyami.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libyami-1.3.0-2.git40fa32e.fc26.src.rpm Changelog: Switch to current git (fix FTBFS in rawhide) Updated description Enable more parsers Enable make check (exept on 32bit and gcc8) Scratch build succeeded in f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25561379 and up to f27 with tests: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25561371
Why it does not use https://github.com/intel/libyami as URL?
(In reply to Sergey Avseyev from comment #4) > Why it does not use https://github.com/intel/libyami as URL? Indeed, it was where the intel graphic team was previously using. I think the redirection still works. Fixed locally.
- When using a dev snapshot, you should also include the commit date in the Release tag: %global commit0 40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920 %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global commitdate0 20180228 Then Release: 2.%{commitdate0}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist} And: * Thu Mar 08 2018 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart> - 1.3.0-2.20180228git40fa32e - Simply use: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz Also please note that there is a discrepancy in your Release tag: 2. in the header, 3. in the %changelog.
- The license is wrong: LICENSE.md is ASL 2.0 and some other parts are BSD: BSD (3 clause) -------------- libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/codecparsers/dboolhuff.LICENSE libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/codecparsers/vp9quant.LICENSE libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/gtestsrc/gtest/LICENSE Please correct the license field and add the above license files with %license - [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libyami- 40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/configure.ac:420 Replace this obsolete macro with LT_INIT. 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libyami/review- libyami/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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 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: libyami-1.3.0-2.20180228git40fa32e.fc29.x86_64.rpm libyami-devel-1.3.0-2.20180228git40fa32e.fc29.x86_64.rpm libyami-debuginfo-1.3.0-2.20180228git40fa32e.fc29.x86_64.rpm libyami-debugsource-1.3.0-2.20180228git40fa32e.fc29.x86_64.rpm libyami-1.3.0-2.20180228git40fa32e.fc29.src.rpm libyami.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Yami -> Tami, Yam, Yams libyami-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libyami-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libyami-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation libyami.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Yami -> Tami, Yam, Yams 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
I forgot: add a comment with the license breakdown above the license field.
Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libyami.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libyami-1.3.0-4.20180228git40fa32e.fc26.src.rpm Changelog: - Switch to --with tests (opt-in) - Improve dist tag with commitdate0 - Correct license - Disable obsolete libtool macro I've disabled make tests by default because most tests needs both a XServer but also a valid vaapi backend. and we cannot expect to have a working one on the builder anyway. So still relevant for local compilation where a vaapi backend will be available.
Looks good, package approved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libyami