Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/gamescope/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01694330-libliftoff/libliftoff.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ngompa/gamescope/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01694330-libliftoff/libliftoff-0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: libliftoff eases the use of KMS planes from userspace without standing in your way. Users create "virtual planes" called layers, set KMS properties on them, and libliftoff will allocate planes for these layers if possible. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/filbranden/rpmbuild/SPECS/1886354-libliftoff/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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]: 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: [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]: 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: libliftoff-0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libliftoff-devel-0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libliftoff-debuginfo-0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libliftoff-debugsource-0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libliftoff-0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1.fc34.src.rpm libliftoff.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libliftoff eases the use of KMS planes from userspace without standing in your way. libliftoff.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libliftoff-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libliftoff-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libliftoff-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libliftoff-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libliftoff.src: E: description-line-too-long C libliftoff eases the use of KMS planes from userspace without standing in your way. libliftoff.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libliftoff-debuginfo-0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libliftoff-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libliftoff-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libliftoff-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libliftoff-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libliftoff-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libliftoff.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libliftoff eases the use of KMS planes from userspace without standing in your way. libliftoff.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/emersion/libliftoff/archive/b0042828ad3a3371853072a57c225f474d747ef9/libliftoff-b0042828ad3a3371853072a57c225f474d747ef9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 903e51015f05d7dbf958136f35b2ae30e62176576ae6b8d14d1d1da25552e074 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 903e51015f05d7dbf958136f35b2ae30e62176576ae6b8d14d1d1da25552e074 Requires -------- libliftoff (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdrm.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libliftoff-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libliftoff(x86-64) libliftoff.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(libdrm) libliftoff-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libliftoff-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libliftoff: libliftoff libliftoff(x86-64) libliftoff.so.0()(64bit) libliftoff-devel: libliftoff-devel libliftoff-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(liftoff) libliftoff-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libliftoff-debuginfo libliftoff-debuginfo(x86-64) libliftoff-debugsource: libliftoff-debugsource libliftoff-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1886354 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, R, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> libliftoff-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog Instead of: * Sun Oct 4 2020 Neal Gompa <ngompa13> Should this be: * Sun Oct 4 2020 Neal Gompa <ngompa13> - 0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1 or similar? > libliftoff-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Does this mean the README.md and LICENSE files should *also* be bundled in the -devel package? I don't think that's the case, since -devel requires the main package so the docs will be available... > libliftoff.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libliftoff eases the use of KMS planes from userspace without standing in your way. You might want to re-flow this paragraph. Otherwise, looks great!
(In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #2) > > libliftoff-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog > > Instead of: > > * Sun Oct 4 2020 Neal Gompa <ngompa13> > > Should this be: > > * Sun Oct 4 2020 Neal Gompa <ngompa13> - > 0.0.0~git20200526.b004282-1 > > or similar? > > Yeah, I'll fix that on import, if that's okay. > > > libliftoff-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > Does this mean the README.md and LICENSE files should *also* be bundled in > the -devel package? I don't think that's the case, since -devel requires the > main package so the docs will be available... > > > > > libliftoff.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libliftoff eases the use of KMS planes from userspace without standing in your way. > > You might want to re-flow this paragraph. > > I'll fix that on import, if that's alright.
Looks good. What's the next step? Should I mark this bug CLOSED or otherwise?
Set the "fedora-review" flag to "+".
> Set the "fedora-review" flag to "+". Done! Thanks Neal.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libliftoff
FEDORA-2020-818f5a53f7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-818f5a53f7
FEDORA-2020-818f5a53f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-818f5a53f7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-818f5a53f7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-818f5a53f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.