SPEC: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera.spec SRPM: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera-0.0.0-0.1.20210908git39c2d5dc95e.fc36.src.rpm Description: libcamera is a library that deals with heavy hardware image processing operations of complex camera devices that are shared between the linux host all while allowing offload of certain aspects to the control of complex camera hardware such as ISPs. Hardware support includes USB UVC cameras, libv4l cameras as well as more complex ISPs (Image Signal Processor). FAS: javierm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75353887
*** Bug 1738290 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Taking this review.
Noticed that my koji build was only for x86_64, here is one for all the arches: koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75402964
> * Wed Sep 08 2021 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson> - 0.0.0-0.1.20210908git39c2d5dc95e Please update the changelog author.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4) > > * Wed Sep 08 2021 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson> - 0.0.0-0.1.20210908git39c2d5dc95e > > Please update the changelog author. Done. I left Peter's name in the changelog entry because I based on the work he did on bug 1738290 and wanted to give him a proper attribution. But makes much more sense what you suggested to keep the original entry and add another one with the changes introduced by me. Will update the spec file and SRPM.
SPEC: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera.spec SRPM: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera-0.0.0-0.3.20210908git39c2d5dc95e.fc36.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75415827
SPEC: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera.spec SRPM: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera-0.0.0-0.1.20210908git39c2d5dc95e.fc36.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75463106
> Version: 0.0.0 > Release: %{rel_major}.%{rel_minor}%{?snapshot:.%{snapshotdate}git%{snapshot}}%{?dist} Please consider using more contemporary snapshot versioning: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_complex_versioning You can see an example of this here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sdl12-compat/blob/e1fcdfe683b61257eb65a6bf679ad02ae5dda8ee/f/sdl12-compat.spec
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8) > > Version: 0.0.0 > > Release: %{rel_major}.%{rel_minor}%{?snapshot:.%{snapshotdate}git%{snapshot}}%{?dist} > > Please consider using more contemporary snapshot versioning: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > #_complex_versioning > > You can see an example of this here: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sdl12-compat/blob/ > e1fcdfe683b61257eb65a6bf679ad02ae5dda8ee/f/sdl12-compat.spec Thanks for the pointers, I've changed it to the following then: Version: 0.0.0~git.%{commitdate}.%{shortcommit} Release: 1%{?dist}
SPEC: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera.spec SRPM: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera-0.0.0~git.20210908.39c2d5d-1.fc36.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75595693
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19496960 bytes in 1740 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 GNU General Public License, Version 2 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2 Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 360 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2002417-libcamera/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libcamera-docs [x]: 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. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- libcamera-ipa: /usr/lib64/libcamera/ipa_ipu3.so libcamera-ipa: /usr/lib64/libcamera/ipa_rkisp1.so libcamera-ipa: /usr/lib64/libcamera/ipa_rpi.so libcamera-ipa: /usr/lib64/libcamera/ipa_vimc.so libcamera-gstreamer: /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstlibcamera.so Requires -------- libcamera (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcamera-base.so.0.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) liblttng-ust.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcamera-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libcamera(x86-64) libcamera-base.so.0.1()(64bit) libcamera.so.0.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(libcamera-base) libcamera-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcamera-ipa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcamera(x86-64) libcamera-base.so.0.1()(64bit) libcamera.so.0.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcamera-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcamera(x86-64) libcamera-base.so.0.1()(64bit) libcamera.so.0.1()(64bit) libevent-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libevent_pthreads-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgtest.so.1.11.0()(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) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcamera-qcam (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcamera(x86-64) libcamera-base.so.0.1()(64bit) libcamera.so.0.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtiff.so.5()(64bit) libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcamera-gstreamer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcamera(x86-64) libcamera-base.so.0.1()(64bit) libcamera.so.0.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstallocators-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstbase-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstvideo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcamera-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcamera-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libcamera: libcamera libcamera(x86-64) libcamera-base.so.0.1()(64bit) libcamera.so.0.1()(64bit) libcamera-devel: libcamera-devel libcamera-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libcamera) pkgconfig(libcamera-base) libcamera-docs: libcamera-docs libcamera-ipa: libcamera-ipa libcamera-ipa(x86-64) libcamera-tools: libcamera-tools libcamera-tools(x86-64) libcamera-qcam: libcamera-qcam libcamera-qcam(x86-64) libcamera-gstreamer: gstreamer1(element-libcamerasrc)()(64bit) libcamera-gstreamer libcamera-gstreamer(x86-64) libgstlibcamera.so()(64bit) libcamera-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libcamera-base.so.0.1-0.0.0~git.20210908.39c2d5d-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcamera-debuginfo libcamera-debuginfo(x86-64) libcamera.so.0.1-0.0.0~git.20210908.39c2d5d-1.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcamera-debugsource: libcamera-debugsource libcamera-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2002417 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 19496960 bytes in 1740 files. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_documentation > > I'm pretty sure this is because it doesn't recognize -docs as a documentation subpackage. Meh. > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > [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. > > 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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", > "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU Lesser General > Public License, Version 2.1 GNU General Public License, Version 2 > Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Apache License 2.0", "*No > copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "*No > copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 Creative > Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "MIT > License BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* > Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", > "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public > License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 > [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version > 2 Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike > 4.0", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", > "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address > (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [generated > file]", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General > Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", > "*No copyright* [generated file]". 360 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/ngompa/2002417-libcamera/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > [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. The libcamera-qcam package needs a desktop file for qcam binary, and probably also an AppStream metainfo file. > [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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > libcamera-docs > [x]: 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. > [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [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 > ------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > I'm not sure what's up with this, but I ran rpmlint manually, and the only "real" error was this: libcamera.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0.1 libcamera.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0.1 Since you're manually forcing this, I think it's probably fine.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #12) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) [snip] > I'm pretty sure this is because it doesn't recognize -docs as a > documentation subpackage. Meh. I've renamed the subpackage to "libcamera-doc". Would that help ? [snip] > > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > > [!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > > The libcamera-qcam package needs a desktop file for qcam binary, and > probably also an AppStream metainfo file. > Ok, added a Desktop Entry [0] and AppStream metainfo [1] files. I've never written those before, so please let me know if some wording isn't correct. [0]: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/qcam.desktop [1]: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/qcam.appdata.xml [snip] > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > > ---------------------------- > > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > > > > I'm not sure what's up with this, but I ran rpmlint manually, and the only > "real" error was this: > > libcamera.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0.1 > libcamera.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0.1 > > Since you're manually forcing this, I think it's probably fine. Hmm, any hints on what can I do to make those errors to go away ?
SPEC: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera.spec SRPM: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera-0.0.0~git.20210908.39c2d5d-1.fc36.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75657313
(In reply to Javier Martinez Canillas from comment #13) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #12) > > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > > [snip] > > > I'm pretty sure this is because it doesn't recognize -docs as a > > documentation subpackage. Meh. > > I've renamed the subpackage to "libcamera-doc". Would that help ? > > [snip] > > > > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > > > [!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > > > > The libcamera-qcam package needs a desktop file for qcam binary, and > > probably also an AppStream metainfo file. > > > > Ok, added a Desktop Entry [0] and AppStream metainfo [1] files. I've never > written those before, so please let me know if some wording isn't correct. > > [0]: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/qcam.desktop > [1]: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/qcam.appdata.xml > > [snip] > LGTM. > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > > > ---------------------------- > > > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what's up with this, but I ran rpmlint manually, and the only > > "real" error was this: > > > > libcamera.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0.1 > > libcamera.x86_64: E: shlib-policy-name-error 0.1 > > > > Since you're manually forcing this, I think it's probably fine. > > Hmm, any hints on what can I do to make those errors to go away ? Actually, I think this error is an rpmlint policy error, so you can ignore it.
> %{_datadir}/appdata/qcam.appdata.xml This should be in %{_metainfodir} and called "qcam.metainfo.xml"
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #16) > > %{_datadir}/appdata/qcam.appdata.xml > > This should be in %{_metainfodir} and called "qcam.metainfo.xml" Right, I actually meant to use %{_metainfodir} first but then did a copy & paste error. I've also renamed the AppStream metainfo file. Thanks again!
SPEC: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera.spec SRPM: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera-0.0.0~git.20210908.39c2d5d-1.fc36.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75683512
> %{_metainfodir}/appdata/qcam.metainfo.xml It's just "%{_metainfodir}/qcam.metainfo.xml"
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #19) > > %{_metainfodir}/appdata/qcam.metainfo.xml > > It's just "%{_metainfodir}/qcam.metainfo.xml" gah, of course. Sorry about that. It's what I get for using sed instead of editing the file.
SPEC: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera.spec SRPM: https://javierm.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libcamera/libcamera-0.0.0~git.20210908.39c2d5d-1.fc36.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75705336
Everything looks good to me now, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #22) > Everything looks good to me now, so... > > PACKAGE APPROVED. Thanks a lot for all your feedback and patience with this!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libcamera