Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/vo-amrwbenc.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/vo-amrwbenc-0.1.3-18.fc37.src.rpm Description: This library contains an encoder implementation of the Adaptive Multi Rate Wideband (AMR-WB) audio codec. The library is based on a codec implementation by VisualOn as part of the Stagefright framework from the Google Android project. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Taking this review
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5289640 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2164291-vo-amrwbenc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05289640-vo-amrwbenc/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/vo-amrwbenc-0.1.3-18.fc38.x86_64/usr/lib64/libvo-amrwbenc.so.0%{,.*} I think you just want {_libdir}/libvo-amrwbenc.so.%{sovermajor}* there.
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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "[generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2164291-vo-amrwbenc/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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vo- amrwbenc-devel [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: vo-amrwbenc-0.1.3-18.fc38.x86_64.rpm vo-amrwbenc-devel-0.1.3-18.fc38.x86_64.rpm vo-amrwbenc-debuginfo-0.1.3-18.fc38.x86_64.rpm vo-amrwbenc-debugsource-0.1.3-18.fc38.x86_64.rpm vo-amrwbenc-0.1.3-18.fc38.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/tmp5q6t48_g')] checks: 31, packages: 5 vo-amrwbenc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation vo-amrwbenc.spec:21: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 21) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: vo-amrwbenc-debuginfo-0.1.3-18.fc38.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/tmpzzj3u48g')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 4 vo-amrwbenc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/opencore-amr/vo-amrwbenc/vo-amrwbenc-0.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5652b391e0f0e296417b841b02987d3fd33e6c0af342c69542cbb016a71d9d4e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5652b391e0f0e296417b841b02987d3fd33e6c0af342c69542cbb016a71d9d4e Requires -------- vo-amrwbenc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vo-amrwbenc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libvo-amrwbenc.so.0()(64bit) vo-amrwbenc(x86-64) vo-amrwbenc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vo-amrwbenc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- vo-amrwbenc: libvo-amrwbenc.so.0()(64bit) vo-amrwbenc vo-amrwbenc(x86-64) vo-amrwbenc-devel: pkgconfig(vo-amrwbenc) vo-amrwbenc-devel vo-amrwbenc-devel(x86-64) vo-amrwbenc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libvo-amrwbenc.so.0.0.4-0.1.3-18.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) vo-amrwbenc-debuginfo vo-amrwbenc-debuginfo(x86-64) vo-amrwbenc-debugsource: vo-amrwbenc-debugsource vo-amrwbenc-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2164291 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Package APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vo-amrwbenc
FEDORA-2023-2efdd54414 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2efdd54414
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-476a4ef530 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-476a4ef530
FEDORA-2023-393be900fb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-393be900fb
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-476a4ef530 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-2efdd54414 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-393be900fb has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.