Spec URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/libaiff.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/libaiff-6.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: LibAiff is an open-source library, providing C applications transparent read & write operations for Audio Interchange File Format (AIFF) files, with the goal of supporting all of its features. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87963899 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87964076 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87983126
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/libaiff.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/libaiff-6.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
Thanks for this. Starting an unofficial review. Is it possible to package the manual https://github.com/mtszb/libaiff/blob/master/MANUAL.html ?
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) > Thanks for this. Starting an unofficial review. Is it possible to package > the manual https://github.com/mtszb/libaiff/blob/master/MANUAL.html ? Yes, thanks. That was an oversight. Given the nature of their contents, I have added the README and the HTML manual as documentation for the -devel subpackage. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220607/libaiff.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220607/libaiff-6.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
In the spec file: Source0: %{forgeurl}/archive/v%{version}/libaiff-%{version}.tar.gz should be Source0: %{forgeurl}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz
A static package may also be good to include. See for example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libtiff/blob/rawhide/f/libtiff.spec
Explicit file lists may also be helpful https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists Static library can probably be skipped, it seems newer libraries do not include this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libwebp/blob/rawhide/f/libwebp.spec Maybe the assembly files can be removed? They do not seem to take advantage of modern processor features.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > In the spec file: > Source0: %{forgeurl}/archive/v%{version}/libaiff-%{version}.tar.gz > should be > Source0: %{forgeurl}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz Thank you for the suggestion. The URL I have is correct/usable, and I think it is preferable because it produces a better tarball name. - This form of GitHub URL has worked for many years, even if it’s not well-documented. - The resulting tarball is easier to identify by name. - The tarball name matches the name of the directory it contains, which is a long-standing convention in source archive releases. - This form of GitHub URL is widely used in other Fedora packages and matches the %{forgesource} that would be generated by the “forge” macros[1]—which I have not used here because they would not simplify things enough to compensate for the added macro indirection. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_release_example
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5) > A static package may also be good to include. See for example: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libtiff/blob/rawhide/f/libtiff.spec There are a few static libraries in Fedora where they are absolutely required for technical reasons. However, “In general, packagers SHOULD NOT ship static libraries.”[1] (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #6) > Explicit file lists may also be helpful > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists I think I already have explicit file lists in this case. There are no broad globs under shared directories. I package an entire directory owned by the package in > %{_includedir}/libaiff/ which I could write instead as > %dir %{_includedir}/libaiff > %{_includedir}/libaiff/config.h > %{_includedir}/libaiff/endian.h > %{_includedir}/libaiff/libaiff.h but I don’t think that verbosity would prevent any likely mistakes. The linked guideline doesn’t ask packagers to list every file in a package-owned directory, only to avoid broad globs in shared directories. The listing of shared library files is consistent with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files; it includes the library name and does not glob over the shared library version. > Static library can probably be skipped, it seems newer libraries do not > include this: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libwebp/blob/rawhide/f/libwebp.spec > > Maybe the assembly files can be removed? They do not seem to take advantage > of modern processor features. I helped upstream update the build system to support shared libraries and .so versioning[2], and, in one of our email conversations, the author specifically expressed their appreciation that I preserved support for compiling these platform-specific assembly routines. It’s an open question whether these routines actually improve performance on newer processors and compilers, but I think it’s best to preserve them in the spirit of staying close to upstream[3]. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries [2] https://github.com/mtszb/libaiff/pull/1 [3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/
Ensure gets obtained by fedora-review New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220607/libaiff.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220607/libaiff-6.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
Thanks for your explanations. Looks good to me. Unofficial review (still need to test functionality): 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]: 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/libaiff/2094422-libaiff/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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 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]: 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [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: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mtszb/libaiff/archive/v6.0/libaiff-6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9d90765b2b90942f928698c02ae1b7caf3037847dbe20a100469998f93e61ffd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9d90765b2b90942f928698c02ae1b7caf3037847dbe20a100469998f93e61ffd Requires -------- libaiff (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libaiff-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libaiff(x86-64) libaiff.so.2()(64bit) libaiff-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libaiff-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libaiff: libaiff libaiff(x86-64) libaiff.so.2()(64bit) libaiff-devel: libaiff-devel libaiff-devel(x86-64) libaiff-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libaiff-debuginfo libaiff-debuginfo(x86-64) libaiff.so.2.0.0-6.0-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libaiff-debugsource: libaiff-debugsource libaiff-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2094422 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Can approve now!
Thanks for the review, and congratulations on joining the packager group! Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46725 Note that the status of the issue must be ASSIGNED for the repository request to succeed.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libaiff
FEDORA-2022-62177df1b1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-62177df1b1
FEDORA-2022-44b30b699f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-44b30b699f
FEDORA-2022-f04eb03935 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f04eb03935
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4d0c09c430 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4d0c09c430
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ed4338a50c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ed4338a50c
FEDORA-2022-62177df1b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-62177df1b1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-62177df1b1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-44b30b699f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-44b30b699f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-44b30b699f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f04eb03935 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-f04eb03935 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f04eb03935 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4d0c09c430 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4d0c09c430 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ed4338a50c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ed4338a50c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-44b30b699f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-f04eb03935 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4d0c09c430 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ed4338a50c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-62177df1b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.