Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aalvarez/onnx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05151965-onnx/onnx.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aalvarez/onnx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05151965-onnx/onnx-1.13.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: onnx provides an open source format for AI models, both deep learning and traditional ML. It defines an extensible computation graph model, as well as definitions of built-in operators and standard data types. Fedora Account System Username: aalvarez
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aalvarez/onnx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05152185-onnx/onnx.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aalvarez/onnx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05152185-onnx/onnx-1.13.0-2.fc38.src.rpm
I'm currently starting to review this package. Here are some things that caught my eye on my first glance: * Even if python3-onnx implicitly depends on onnx-libs since it needs the libonnx.so lib, I think you should still make the requirement explicit because the license information is on the onnx-libs package. * You should use the SPDX expression in the License field [0] (in this case, Apache-2.0 instead of ASL 2.0 [1]) [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
Sorry for the delay. I wanted to find the time to actually test this thing out but in the end I ended up dragging it for too long. I didn't found out anything wrong besides the license not complying with SPDX thing I mentioned earlier, so if you submit the same package with that corrected I'll approve it :) ``` Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluate ===== 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: [!]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "MIT License [generated file]", "MIT License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0". 5163 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dherrera/src/reviews/onnx/review-onnx/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. [?]: 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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in onnx- libs , onnx-devel , python3-onnx [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: onnx-libs-1.13.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm onnx-devel-1.13.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm python3-onnx-1.13.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm onnx-debuginfo-1.13.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm onnx-debugsource-1.13.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm onnx-1.13.0-2.fc39.src.rpm ============================================================================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================================================================================================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpy1ygtd_c')] checks: 31, packages: 6 onnx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-onnx.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-onnx.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/tools/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/backend/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/backend/sample/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/bin/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/frontend/__init__.py python3-onnx.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/reference/ops/experimental/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/reference/ops/__init__.py ============================================================================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s ============================================================================================================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: onnx-libs-debuginfo-1.13.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm onnx-debuginfo-1.13.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm ============================================================================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================================================================================================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp1xbpe0sn')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ============================================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ============================================================================================================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 6 onnx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-onnx.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-onnx.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/tools/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/backend/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/backend/sample/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/bin/__init__.py:/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/frontend/__init__.py python3-onnx.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/reference/ops/experimental/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/reference/ops/__init__.py 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-onnx: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/onnx/onnx_cpp2py_export.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/onnx/onnx/archive/v1.13.0/onnx-1.13.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 66eb61fc0ff4b6189816eb8e4da52e1e6775a1c29f372cbd08b694aa5b4ca978 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66eb61fc0ff4b6189816eb8e4da52e1e6775a1c29f372cbd08b694aa5b4ca978 Requires -------- onnx-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libonnx_proto.so.1.13.0()(64bit) libprotobuf-lite.so.30()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) onnx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libonnx.so.1.13.0()(64bit) libonnx_proto.so.1.13.0()(64bit) onnx-libs python3-onnx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libonnx.so.1.13.0()(64bit) libonnx_proto.so.1.13.0()(64bit) libprotobuf-lite.so.30()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) onnx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): onnx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- onnx-libs: libonnx.so.1.13.0()(64bit) libonnx_proto.so.1.13.0()(64bit) onnx-libs onnx-libs(x86-64) onnx-devel: cmake(ONNX) cmake(onnx) onnx-devel onnx-devel(x86-64) python3-onnx: python-onnx python3-onnx python3-onnx(x86-64) python3.11-onnx onnx-debuginfo: onnx-debuginfo onnx-debuginfo(x86-64) onnx-debugsource: onnx-debugsource onnx-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n onnx Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ```
Thanks again for your help, here are the updated spec and srpm Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aalvarez/onnx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05939221-onnx/onnx.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aalvarez/onnx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05939221-onnx/onnx-1.13.0-3.fc39.src.rpm And the build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/aalvarez/onnx/build/5939221/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5940672 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2154518-onnx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05940672-onnx/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The issues were resolved, so the package is approved! Just a couple things to note: * As per Packaging Guidelines [0], remember to file a bug regarding the excluded arch and comment the spec file accordingly when the package is properly published. * There is already a new version of the library out [1], so you can check on updating after the package is published. * I would like to help co-maintaining the package, so if you don't mind you can add me after the package is published. My FAS is dherrera. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures [1] https://github.com/onnx/onnx/releases/tag/v1.14.0
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/onnx
*** Bug 2213495 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***