Spec URL: https://zdohnal.fedorapeople.org/libppd/libppd.spec SRPM URL: https://zdohnal.fedorapeople.org/libppd/libppd-2.0b3-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Library for retro-fitting legacy printer drivers Fedora Account System Username: zdohnal
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5528943 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2170050-libppd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05528943-libppd/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 If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "FSF All Permissive License", "Apache License 2.0". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2170050-libppd/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. [x]: 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 143360 bytes in 6 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [!]: 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]: 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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: libppd-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libppd-devel-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libppd-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libppd-debugsource-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libppd-2.0b3-1.fc39.src.rpm ========================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/tmppua2n44j')] checks: 31, packages: 5 =========== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libppd-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ========================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/tmpont2ly2a')] checks: 31, packages: 1 =========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenPrinting/libppd/archive/2.0b3/libppd-2.0b3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 577314c1d1858d61dc7a7c1c88f91a04f629c0131583838974192c7934d6e696 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 577314c1d1858d61dc7a7c1c88f91a04f629c0131583838974192c7934d6e696 Requires -------- libppd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghostscript libc.so.6()(64bit) libcups.so.2()(64bit) libcupsfilters.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) poppler-utils rtld(GNU_HASH) libppd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libppd(x86-64) libppd.so.2()(64bit) libppd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libppd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libppd: libppd libppd(x86-64) libppd.so.2()(64bit) libppd-devel: libppd-devel libppd-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libppd) libppd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libppd-debuginfo libppd-debuginfo(x86-64) libppd.so.2.0.0-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libppd-debugsource: libppd-debugsource libppd-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libppd-2.0b3/configure.ac:61 Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2170050 -L 2169403-libcupsfilters/repo Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2169403-libcupsfilters/repo/libcupsfilters-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2169403-libcupsfilters/repo/libcupsfilters-debugsource-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2169403-libcupsfilters/repo/libcupsfilters-devel-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2169403-libcupsfilters/repo/libcupsfilters-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
The only minor issue is missing link to upstream PR/issue above present patch. Otherwise it seems fine. Nothing which should block the review. LT_INIT should be used instead AC_PROG_LIBTOOL in configure.ac
Oh, noticed one thing. Shouldn't devel package has also Requires: libcupsfilters-devel ? maybe also cups-devel, not sure about that. Pkg-config does not require the dependency, but header includes suggests it is needed. At least <ppd/ppd.h> header includes both from cups/ and cupsfilters/ subdirectories. That suggests they are needed anytime this devel package should be useful. As a minimum Recommends: should be used. Not sure if ppdc.h can be used separately and can work without libcupsfilters-devel, do not understand they purpose enough.
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #3) > The only minor issue is missing link to upstream PR/issue above present > patch. Otherwise it seems fine. Nothing which should block the review. > The comment was added. > LT_INIT should be used instead AC_PROG_LIBTOOL in configure.ac Fixed in https://github.com/OpenPrinting/libppd/pull/8 , but didn't take it as priority for backporting. (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #4) > Oh, noticed one thing. Shouldn't devel package has also Requires: > libcupsfilters-devel ? maybe also cups-devel, not sure about that. > > Pkg-config does not require the dependency, but header includes suggests it > is needed. > > At least <ppd/ppd.h> header includes both from cups/ and cupsfilters/ > subdirectories. That suggests they are needed anytime this devel package > should be useful. > As a minimum Recommends: should be used. Great eyes! Fixed with "Requires" on cups-devel and libcupsfilters-devel. > > Not sure if ppdc.h can be used separately and can work without > libcupsfilters-devel, do not understand they purpose enough. ppdc.h is a header file primary used for PPD compiler, which is currently shipped with CUPS, so its compilation in libppd is turned off. However the file is included in ppd/ppd-collection.cxx, which is used in libppd main library, so I'll check whether we can't separate functions needed by libppd and by ppdc.
(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #5) > (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #3) > > The only minor issue is missing link to upstream PR/issue above present > > patch. Otherwise it seems fine. Nothing which should block the review. > > > > The comment was added. > > > LT_INIT should be used instead AC_PROG_LIBTOOL in configure.ac > > Fixed in https://github.com/OpenPrinting/libppd/pull/8 , but didn't take it > as priority for backporting. > > (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #4) > > > > Not sure if ppdc.h can be used separately and can work without > > libcupsfilters-devel, do not understand they purpose enough. > > ppdc.h is a header file primary used for PPD compiler, which is currently > shipped with CUPS, so its compilation in libppd is turned off. However the > file is included in ppd/ppd-collection.cxx, which is used in libppd main > library, so I'll check whether we can't separate functions needed by libppd > and by ppdc. Ok, worked it out - libppd exports symbols from ppdc.h as well, so it should be in its devel subpackage - charsets (.defs files) and header files for PPD runtime generation are currently shipped by CUPS, so libppd will require CUPS until CUPS drops those files in 3.x - then libppd-tools will be required.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libppd
Built in rawhide as https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dc309c9581 and F38 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1cebd31dad