Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/openfec/openfec.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/openfec/openfec-1.4.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Application-Level Forward Erasure Correction codes, or AL-FEC (also called UL-FEC, for Upper-Layers FEC). The idea, in one line, is to add redundancy in order to be able to recover from erasures. Because of their position in the communication stack, these codes are implemented as software codecs, and they find many applications in robust transmission and distrituted storage systems. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
Switched to the roc-toolkit fork with many bugfixes that didn't get to openfec upstream, because the original openfec upstream seems dead. As I want the openfec library to use with the roc-toolkit I am perfectly fine with the fork. Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/openfec/openfec.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/openfec/openfec-1.4.2.4-1.fc35.src.rpm
Can you make a build on Copr or Koji
S390x fixes. Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/openfec/openfec.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/openfec/openfec-1.4.2.4-2.fc35.src.rpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91431372
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* CeCILL-C Free Software License Agreement v1.0", "*No copyright* CeCILL Free Software License Agreement v2.0", "CeCILL-C License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "CeCILL-C License CeCILL License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/openfec/2121558-openfec/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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/roc-streaming/openfec/archive/v1.4.2.4/openfec_1.4.2.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 691e3ec41b948e93dd34c690139624e2e20ed390e6a5f000f238491574343a16 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 691e3ec41b948e93dd34c690139624e2e20ed390e6a5f000f238491574343a16 Requires -------- openfec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) openfec-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libopenfec.so.1()(64bit) openfec(x86-64) openfec-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenfec.so.1()(64bit) openfec(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) openfec-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openfec-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- openfec: libopenfec.so.1()(64bit) openfec openfec(x86-64) openfec-devel: openfec-devel openfec-devel(x86-64) openfec-utils: openfec-utils openfec-utils(x86-64) openfec-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libopenfec.so.1.4.2-1.4.2.4-2.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) openfec-debuginfo openfec-debuginfo(x86-64) openfec-debugsource: openfec-debugsource openfec-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121558 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, R, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Correct functionality assumed from tests passing b) The files with licenses: GNU General Public License v2.0 or later ---------------------------------------- openfec-1.4.2.4/tools/descr_stats_v1.2/descr_stats.c BSD 2-Clause License -------------------- openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_8/of_reed-solomon_gf_2_8.c openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_m/galois_field_codes_utils/algebra_2_4.c openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_m/galois_field_codes_utils/algebra_2_4.h openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_m/galois_field_codes_utils/algebra_2_8.c openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_m/galois_field_codes_utils/algebra_2_8.h are installed or used in the build. License in the spec file should be updated to indicate this and give a breakdown. c) For the files without an explicit license, what should be assumed CeCILL v1 or CeCILL v2?
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) Thanks for the review. > b) The files with licenses: > > GNU General Public License v2.0 or later > ---------------------------------------- > openfec-1.4.2.4/tools/descr_stats_v1.2/descr_stats.c > BSD 2-Clause License > -------------------- > openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_8/of_reed-solomon_gf_2_8.c > openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_m/galois_field_codes_utils/ > algebra_2_4.c > openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_m/galois_field_codes_utils/ > algebra_2_4.h > openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_m/galois_field_codes_utils/ > algebra_2_8.c > openfec-1.4.2.4/src/lib_stable/reed-solomon_gf_2_m/galois_field_codes_utils/ > algebra_2_8.h > > are installed or used in the build. License in the spec file should be > updated to indicate this and give a breakdown. Fixed > c) For the files without an explicit license, what should be assumed CeCILL > v1 or CeCILL v2? I think CeCILL-C is assumed, from the upstream text [1]: CeCCIL-C is the main licence, for most of the OpenFEC library source code. [1] http://openfec.org/patents.html Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/openfec/openfec.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/openfec/openfec-1.4.2.4-3.fc35.src.rpm
Looks good. Approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openfec
FEDORA-2022-ee1c6668b5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ee1c6668b5
FEDORA-2022-ee1c6668b5 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-14a5423668 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-14a5423668
FEDORA-2022-91a52e6a08 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-91a52e6a08
FEDORA-2022-7c88ed3858 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7c88ed3858
FEDORA-2022-14a5423668 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-2022-14a5423668 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-14a5423668 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-91a52e6a08 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-2022-91a52e6a08 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-91a52e6a08 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-7c88ed3858 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-2022-7c88ed3858 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7c88ed3858 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-14a5423668 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-91a52e6a08 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-7c88ed3858 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.