Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix-0.3.1-1.20230205git41a98a2.fc38.src.rpm Description: A lightweight C library of portability wrappers and data structures Fedora Account System Username: tartina This will be a dependency of the next version of sord. It has been unbundled from sord upstream.
Warnings from Fedora-review: zix.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot A lightweight C library of portability wra ppers and data structures. zix-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog zix-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog zix-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog zix.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog zix-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Is glib2-devel required?
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix-0.3.1-2.20230205git41a98a2.fc38.src.rpm Removed glib dependency. We cannot build docs until sphinxygen is packaged too. I will file a new review requst asap.
Why leave glib2-devel as commented out? Sphinx can generate man pages: https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/man/sphinx-build.html Can wait until sphinxygen is packaged before continuing.
I will delete glib2-devel, it was a test because at first it was required maybe for docs. I have some difficulties packaging sphinxygen, there is no setup.py, it should be installed using pip and I don't know if it is permitted by the guidelines.
There are a number of Python packages in Fedora, check their spec files. Also see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
It is nice to have the documentation, but not required for packaging, can be added later if it will take some time. If want to add it later, your note in the spec file explaining why docs are not packaged is sufficient.
Sphinxygen should be available shortly https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinxygen You can test it as indicated at: https://fedoramagazine.org/contributing-fedora-testing-packages/ If you have a chance, please examine https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kiss-fft/pull-requests need it for another package.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix-0.3.1-3.20230226git262d4a1.fc39.src.rpm Added docs Thanks for building sphinxygen, I will try to review something from that list
Why do you have: BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/sphinxygen BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/sphinx-build rather than BuildRequires: sphinxygen BuildRequires: sphinx-build
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix-0.3.1-4.20230226git262d4a1.fc39.src.rpm Fixed BRs
Issues from Fedora-review: - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1914880 bytes in 83 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation zix.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.1-4 ['0.3.1-4.20230226git262d4a1.fc39', '0.3.1-4.20230226git262d4a1'] zix-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/.buildinfo zix-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/.buildinfo zix-devel.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 508176 zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/_sphinx_javascript_frameworks_compat.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/_sphinx_javascript_frameworks_compat.js zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/custom.css /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/custom.css zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/doctools.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/doctools.js zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/file.png /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/file.png zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/jquery-3.6.0.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/jquery-3.6.0.js zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/jquery.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/jquery.js zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/language_data.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/language_data.js zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/minus.png /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/minus.png zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/plus.png /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/plus.png zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/pygments.css /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/pygments.css zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/searchtools.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/searchtools.js zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/sphinx_highlight.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/sphinx_highlight.js zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/underscore-1.13.1.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/underscore-1.13.1.js zix-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/singlehtml/_static/underscore.js /usr/share/doc/zix/zix-0/html/_static/underscore.js Suggest generate man page output. If html output is necessary, put it in a separate package. Would probably also need to indicate bundled jquery.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix-0.3.1-5.20230226git262d4a1.fc39.src.rpm Put documentation files into separate package Static sphynx files are duplicated for html and singlehtml doc directory. We could delete one of the two, maybe single html, or go with the duplicated files.
Created attachment 1951836 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5628121 to 5679109
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~tartina/zix-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc39.src.rpm Delete single page html documetation Make doc package noarch and make it depend on base package
Created attachment 1957732 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5679109 to 5792769
Any news on this?
It would be great if can also generate man pages. Probably a few changes are needed to: https://gitlab.com/drobilla/zix/-/blob/main/doc/Doxyfile.in https://gitlab.com/drobilla/zix/-/blob/main/doc/meson.build
I'd like not to patch the original sources, we have html documentation and this is a library. I think docs are sufficient for programmers who want to use this library.
Any news on this? It has become a dependency for many other audio packages
Any news?
[fedora-review-service-build]
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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "BSD 0-Clause License", "ISC License", "Unknown or generated", "ISC License BSD 0-Clause License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/zix/2167178-zix/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. [!]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9390 bytes in 1 files. [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 zix- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: zix-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc38.x86_64.rpm zix-devel-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc38.x86_64.rpm zix-doc-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc38.noarch.rpm zix-debuginfo-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc38.x86_64.rpm zix-debugsource-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc38.x86_64.rpm zix-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.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/tmpt49lcg5r')] checks: 31, packages: 6 zix-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation zix.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.1-6 ['0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc38', '0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1'] ============= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.9 s ============= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: zix-debuginfo-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.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/tmpacgdmuqz')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 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: 5 zix-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation zix.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.1-6 ['0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc38', '0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1'] 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/drobilla/zix/-/archive/262d4a1522c38be0588746e874159da5c7bb457d/zix-262d4a1522c38be0588746e874159da5c7bb457d.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0b6a349c921e2ab29c2cb1059627cee215c3768737bd6036b159f7bce86c45fe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0b6a349c921e2ab29c2cb1059627cee215c3768737bd6036b159f7bce86c45fe Requires -------- zix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) zix-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libzix-0.so.0()(64bit) zix(x86-64) zix-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): zix(x86-64) zix-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): zix-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- zix: libzix-0.so.0()(64bit) zix zix(x86-64) zix-devel: pkgconfig(zix-0) zix-devel zix-devel(x86-64) zix-doc: bundled(js-jquery) zix-doc zix-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libzix-0.so.0.3.1-0.3.1-6.20230226git262d4a1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) zix-debuginfo zix-debuginfo(x86-64) zix-debugsource: zix-debugsource zix-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2167178 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ruby, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Builds on required architectures: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/zix/build/6268730/ b) The file hierarchy for included files /usr/include/zix-0/zix is unusual, but seems ok. c) Changelog warning seems to be because short commit is not used as upstream does not have tags, though does label the version. The commit hashes might be easier to distinguish, but choice to use release version seems fine. Thanks for your patience.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zix