Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/18fc2cc/aom.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/aom/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00729465-aom/aom-0.1-0.1.201780319git07a28bc.fc29.src.rpm Description: The Alliance for Open Media’s focus is to deliver a next-generation video format that is: - Interoperable and open; - Optimized for the Internet; - Scalable to any modern device at any bandwidth; - Designed with a low computational footprint and optimized for hardware; - Capable of consistent, highest-quality, real-time video delivery; and - Flexible for both commercial and non-commercial content, including user-generated content. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
Please check the rpath issue (is a must item in guidelines) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Rpath in /usr/bin/aomanalyzer, please check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. ==> check /usr/bin/aomanalyzer [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "CC0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "ISC", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 951 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lupinix/1558224-aom/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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 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 aom- debuginfo , aom-debugsource [?]: 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. ===> See Koji scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25825198 [-]: %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]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3328000 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: aom-0.1-0.1.201780319git07a28bc.fc29.x86_64.rpm aom-devel-0.1-0.1.201780319git07a28bc.fc29.x86_64.rpm aom-debuginfo-0.1-0.1.201780319git07a28bc.fc29.x86_64.rpm aom-debugsource-0.1-0.1.201780319git07a28bc.fc29.x86_64.rpm aom-0.1-0.1.201780319git07a28bc.fc29.src.rpm aom.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/aomanalyzer ['/builddir/build/BUILD/aom-0.1/build'] ===> Please check aom.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 exit.5 aom.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 aom.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 ==0> Fine, we have %ldconfig_scriptlets aom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aomanalyzer aom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aomdec aom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aomenc aom-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib aom-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) aom-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation aom.src: W: file-size-mismatch aom-07a28bc09e9a1beaa86902aa613f21eb09ac5f6c.tar.gz = 2818627, https://aomedia.googlesource.com/aom/+archive/07a28bc09e9a1beaa86902aa613f21eb09ac5f6c.tar.gz#/aom-07a28bc09e9a1beaa86902aa613f21eb09ac5f6c.tar.gz = 2818775 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: aom-debuginfo-0.1-0.1.201780319git07a28bc.fc29.x86_64.rpm aom-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory aom-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://aomedia.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> aom-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib aom.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://aomedia.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> aom.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/aomanalyzer ['/builddir/build/BUILD/aom-0.1/build'] aom.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 pthread_once aom.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 pthread_create aom.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 pthread_join aom.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 exit.5 aom.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 aom.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 aom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aomanalyzer aom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aomdec aom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aomenc aom-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://aomedia.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> aom-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) aom-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://aomedia.org/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> aom-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 13 warnings. Requires -------- aom-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config aom(x86-64) libaom.so.0()(64bit) aom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libaom.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_adv-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_adv-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) aom-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aom-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- aom-devel: aom-devel aom-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(aom) aom: aom aom(x86-64) av1 libaom.so.0()(64bit) aom-debuginfo: aom-debuginfo aom-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) aom-debugsource: aom-debugsource aom-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://aomedia.googlesource.com/aom/+archive/07a28bc09e9a1beaa86902aa613f21eb09ac5f6c.tar.gz#/aom-07a28bc09e9a1beaa86902aa613f21eb09ac5f6c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2ebc6756ce31f555b8f083fa9d2afd4293ae69e11481688a31d264c21f9a54c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aa64fb12f7215fd8acada8887879307813525f20f3940467712755eaf7ee9366 However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1558224 -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks for the review! I've removed the Rpath. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/b59a873/aom.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/aom/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00729717-aom/aom-0.1-0.1.201780319git07a28bc.fc29.src.rpm Spec diff: https://github.com/eclipseo/packaging/commit/b59a873416dfc39e47639ceabad605a81da98839#diff-3a3861e632f0793bbe7a5dadd682ca4d
Rpath fixed, looks good now => Approved!
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aom
aom-1.0.0-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ce77dc77a4
aom-1.0.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ce594563f4
aom-1.0.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ce594563f4
aom-1.0.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ce77dc77a4
aom-1.0.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
aom-1.0.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Installation /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 as dependency leads to installation of 23M other large deps wxBase3, wxGTK3 and wxGTK3-i18n that required only for /usr/bin/aomanalyzer utility. Is it possible to split this package somehow to eliminate installation of large deps? For example, /usr/lib64/libaom.so.0 can be packaged in aom-libs subpackage.
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a27847dadb has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a27847dadb
aom-1.0.0-8.20190810git9666276.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a27847dadb
aom-1.0.0-8.20190810git9666276.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.