Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ianhattendorf/gli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00726688-gli/gli.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ianhattendorf/gli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00726688-gli/gli-0.8.2.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: OpenGL Image (GLI) is a header only C++ image library for graphics software. GLI provides classes and functions to load image files (KTX and DDS), facilitate graphics APIs texture creation, compare textures, access texture texels, sample textures, convert textures, generate mipmaps, etc. Hello, I'd like to get this header-only static/devel library added to Fedora if possible. I'll need a sponsor as this is my first package. Upstream: http://gli.g-truc.net and https://github.com/g-truc/gli Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25620910 Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ianhattendorf/gli/build/726688/ Fedora Account System Username: ianhattendorf
- This shouldn't be needed, instead make your devel subpackage noarch. # Header only library %global debug_package %{nil} - Not needed in Fedora: Group: Development/Libraries - Test failures on bid-endian machines Have you reported it upstream? I'm not able to sponsor you, try introducing yourself on the fedora-devel mailing list and do informal reviews to show you understand the guidelines.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - This shouldn't be needed, instead make your devel subpackage noarch. > > # Header only library > %global debug_package %{nil} > > - Not needed in Fedora: > > Group: Development/Libraries > > - Test failures on bid-endian machines > > Have you reported it upstream? > > > I'm not able to sponsor you, try introducing yourself on the fedora-devel > mailing list and do informal reviews to show you understand the guidelines. Thanks for the comment. I've removed the deprecated Group tag and added a link to the upstream issue report. I've also added BuildRequires: gcc-c++. Regarding noarch, I thought that wasn't recommended for header only libraries? "It may be tempting to make the header library package noarch, since the header files themselves are simply text. However, a library should have tests which should be run on all architectures. Also, the install process may modify the installed headers depending on the build architecture. For these reasons, header-only packages must not be marked noarch." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Do_not_use_noarch If that's outdated or not recommended in this case, it should be easy enough to switch to noarch. The cmake files would need to be moved from _libdir to _datadir, and the gliVersion.cmake file patched to ignore system pointer size. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ianhattendorf/gli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00727593-gli/gli.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ianhattendorf/gli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00727593-gli/gli-0.8.2.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
To be honest, I did not know that rule, proceed as before then. Also for the ExcludeArch, please follow this guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures and file the appropriate bugs Your package seems very good otherwise. One issue: the -doc subpackage should be noarch. I will accept your package once you find a sponsor and fix the aforementioned issue. 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: 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]: 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)", "CC0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* CC0". 1431 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gli/review- gli/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/cmake(qt5-qtbase, pulseaudio-libs-devel, cmake-filesystem) [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 30720 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gli- devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3614720 bytes in /usr/share [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: gli-devel-0.8.2.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm gli-doc-0.8.2.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm gli-0.8.2.0-1.fc29.src.rpm gli-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US texels -> tells gli-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mipmaps -> mishaps gli-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gli.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US texels -> tells gli.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mipmaps -> mishaps 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Great, thank you. I've changed -doc to noarch and added a comment with the description from the architecture build failures section since the package is still under review. After review, I'll file the bugs. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ianhattendorf/gli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00727973-gli/gli.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ianhattendorf/gli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00727973-gli/gli-0.8.2.0-2.fc29.src.rpm
Please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text According to the MIT license: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. But the Source0 does not contain the license. Please contact upstream and ask them to add the license text to the distributed zip file. If the hesitate, you can add it as Source1 from http://gli.g-truc.net/copying.txt.
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #5) > Please see: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > According to the MIT license: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in > all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > But the Source0 does not contain the license. Please contact upstream and > ask them to add the license text to the distributed zip file. If the > hesitate, you can add it as Source1 from http://gli.g-truc.net/copying.txt. It looks like the license was originally separate[0], but is now included as part of the manual.md file[1]. Should I replace`%doc manual.md` with `%license manual.md`? Or does the license need to be separate from documentation in this case, and therefore request upstream to re-add copying.md? [0]: https://github.com/g-truc/gli/commit/7308250d2f1d6f09ce2b51ff414c0de895ff319e [1]: https://github.com/g-truc/gli/blob/master/manual.md#section0
Ok. I overlooked that. No need for change then. When manual.md contains mix of normal documentation and license, then leave it as %doc.
I tried your package but it doesn't build on Fedora 30 ppc64le. Does it build on COPR?
I'm not sure. Unfortunately I don't have time anymore to maintain this package. Is there an orphaned status for packages that aren't yet approved, or should I close it?
You can just close it. Doing that for you.