Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/indi-3rdparty-libraries/indi-3rdparty-libraries.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/indi-3rdparty-libraries/indi-3rdparty-libraries-1.9.3-4.fc36.src.rpm Description: This is a metapackage for installing all INDI 3rdparty libraries at once. You probably don't want to install everything, but just pick the libraries you need from the appropriate subpackage. Fedora Account System Username: mattia Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81416489 This new package will be a rename of two other packages currently built separately from the same sources. (libapogee and libfli)
Upstream has just released 1.9.4, but in order to update this new package I'd need to update libindi first. I plan to update all the INDI stack after this package gets approved.
The main question that comes to my mind here is: if INDI declares those libraries as "3rdparty", why are you using INDI as the upstream here? Are the original upstream projects dead? Does INDI require non-upstream modifications to the libraries?
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #2) > The main question that comes to my mind here is: if INDI declares those > libraries as "3rdparty", why are you using INDI as the upstream here? Are > the original upstream projects dead? Does INDI require non-upstream > modifications to the libraries? Not sure about that. I suppose INDI provides the libraries to assure compatibility with the drivers it provides. Besides of that, both libindi and libfli (the only two libraries included here) upstreams seem long time dead (the core code seems not touched since years). Also Debian folks use INDI 3rdparty as upstream.
The only fail from fedora-review was: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). The diff is only the addition or removal of a couple comment lines so I don't think that's significant. The fails from manual review are: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. libapogee/LICENSE is GPLv2 but the License in the spec file is LGPLv2+ and MPLv2.0. licensecheck.txt shows all 3 on various files, so I guess all 3 should be listed. I don't know if the LICENSE file(s) should also include all 3, I suppose they should. libfli/LICENSE.BSD is BSD and matches the libfli subpackage; licensecheck.txt shows BSD 2-Clause and 3-Clause, and also one file (libfli/docxx.sty) that's GPLv2. The libfli/LICENSE.BSD file is 2-Clause. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. These are bundled libraries, and I don't see an exception from the Fedora Packaging Committee referenced. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. There are two patch files without links or justification. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. There is no %check. Please correct or justify these. rpmlint passed OK. =========================== Manual review items were (now evaluated): [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. libapogee/LICENSE is GPLv2 but the License in the subpackage is LGPLv2+ and MPLv2.0. licensecheck.txt shows all 3 on various files, so I guess all 3 should be listed. I don't know if the LICENSE file(s) should also include all 3, I suppose they should. libfli/LICENSE.BSD is BSD and matches the libfli subpackage. licensecheck.txt shows BSD 2-Clause and 3-Clause, and also one file (libfli/docxx.sty) that's GPLv2. The libfli/LICENSE.BSD file is 2-Clause. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. There aren't in any in -devel subpackages but I suppose that's OK. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Generated note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/lib/udev [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/libapogee(libapogee-devel) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. The build uses cmake which I assume honors normal compiler flags. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. These are bundled libraries, and I don't see an exception from the Fedora Packaging Committee referenced. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Missing %config(noreplace) on %config /etc/Apogee but it is justified. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. Not 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. Not needed [x]: 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. Generated note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. It does include license texts from upstream. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. The generated note (below) complained about not requiring the base package but I think that's OK. Generated note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in indi-3rdparty-libapogee , indi-3rdparty-libapogee-devel , indi-3rdparty-libfli , indi-3rdparty-libfli-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. There is a newer version but package owner explained in the ticket an upgrade will happen soon. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. There are two patch files without links or justification. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Source0 contains tarball without URL, but it is in the comment [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. gpgverify is not used but there aren't upstream signatures or hashes. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Only English is supported [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. There is no %check. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Nothing is done to disturb timestamps. ==================== Here's the full output of fedora-review without the manual review lines: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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 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 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- indi-3rdparty-libraries (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): indi-3rdparty-libapogee (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(indi-3rdparty-libapogee) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) indi-3rdparty-libapogee-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): indi-3rdparty-libapogee(x86-64) libapogee.so.3()(64bit) indi-3rdparty-libfli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) indi-3rdparty-libfli-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): indi-3rdparty-libfli(x86-64) libfli.so.2()(64bit) indi-3rdparty-libraries-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): indi-3rdparty-libraries-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- indi-3rdparty-libraries: indi-3rdparty-libraries indi-3rdparty-libraries(x86-64) indi-3rdparty-libapogee: config(indi-3rdparty-libapogee) indi-3rdparty-libapogee indi-3rdparty-libapogee(x86-64) libapogee libapogee.so.3()(64bit) indi-3rdparty-libapogee-devel: indi-3rdparty-libapogee-devel indi-3rdparty-libapogee-devel(x86-64) libapogee-devel indi-3rdparty-libfli: indi-3rdparty-libfli indi-3rdparty-libfli(x86-64) libapogee libfli.so.2()(64bit) indi-3rdparty-libfli-devel: indi-3rdparty-libfli-devel indi-3rdparty-libfli-devel(x86-64) libfli-devel indi-3rdparty-libraries-debuginfo: indi-3rdparty-libraries-debuginfo indi-3rdparty-libraries-debuginfo(x86-64) indi-3rdparty-libraries-debugsource: indi-3rdparty-libraries-debugsource indi-3rdparty-libraries-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /nashome/d/dwd/2042043-indi-3rdparty-libraries/srpm/indi-3rdparty-libraries.spec 2022-01-26 23:20:54.366024866 +0000 +++ /nashome/d/dwd/2042043-indi-3rdparty-libraries/srpm-unpacked/indi-3rdparty-libraries.spec 2022-01-18 17:56:05.000000000 +0000 @@ -16,7 +16,5 @@ Source1: generate-libraries-tarball.sh -# Upstream injects -fPIE flag, but we want -fPIC Patch: modify_cmake_common_flags.patch -# https://github.com/indilib/indi-3rdparty/pull/529 Patch: libapogee_gcc12.patch Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2042043 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Python, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/indi-3rdparty-libraries/indi-3rdparty-libraries.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/indi-3rdparty-libraries/indi-3rdparty-libraries-1.9.3-5.fc36.src.rpm (In reply to Dave Dykstra from comment #4) > The only fail from fedora-review was: > > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > > The diff is only the addition or removal of a couple comment lines so I > don't think that's significant. > > The fails from manual review are: > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > libapogee/LICENSE is GPLv2 but the License in the spec file is > LGPLv2+ and MPLv2.0. licensecheck.txt shows all 3 on various > files, so I guess all 3 should be listed. I don't know if the > LICENSE file(s) should also include all 3, I suppose they should. > libfli/LICENSE.BSD is BSD and matches the libfli subpackage; > licensecheck.txt shows BSD 2-Clause and 3-Clause, and also one > file (libfli/docxx.sty) that's GPLv2. The libfli/LICENSE.BSD > file is 2-Clause. I've corrected libapogee license to "GPLv2+ and MPLv2.0". For libfli, according to Fedora licensing guide, both BSD 2-clause and 3-clause have the "BSD" short name. > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > These are bundled libraries, and I don't see an exception from the > Fedora Packaging Committee referenced. indilib can be considered as "upstream" because the real upstreams are long time dead. Also Debian uses this repository as upstream. Consider also we're already shipping libapogee and libfli from the same indilib sources. Do you think a FPC exception is really required? > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > There are two patch files without links or justification. Yeah, I put the comments in the plain spec file, I didn't update the srpm. Now it is. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > There is no %check. I've added an empty %check as there are no tests to run. > > Please correct or justify these. > > rpmlint passed OK. >
Thanks for the updates and justifications. I'm setting this to pass.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/indi-3rdparty-libraries