Bug 2170364 - Review Request: blurhash-cpp - C++ blurhash encoder/decoder
Summary: Review Request: blurhash-cpp - C++ blurhash encoder/decoder
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Benson Muite
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/%{name}
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-02-16 08:39 UTC by Vitaly
Modified: 2023-02-23 02:18 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-02-23 01:24:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
benson_muite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Vitaly 2023-02-16 08:39:17 UTC
Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/blurhash.spec
SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/blurhash-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.fc37.src.rpm
Description: C++ blurhash encoder/decoder
Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly

Comment 1 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-16 08:47:58 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5531468
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2170364-blurhash/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05531468-blurhash/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.

Comment 2 Benson Muite 2023-02-17 17:15:00 UTC
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]: 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* Boost Software License
     1.0", "The Unlicense MIT License". 10 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/blurhash/2170364-blurhash/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: %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:
[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: blurhash-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          blurhash-devel-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          blurhash-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          blurhash-debugsource-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          blurhash-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.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/tmpmnjl6wd9')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

blurhash-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blurhash.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary blurhash
blurhash.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary blurhash
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.8 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: blurhash-debuginfo-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.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/tmp09iezohj')]
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: 4

blurhash-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blurhash.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary blurhash
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/blurhash/archive/993c60d24d5006b6bd5bdd935c77f9a2b9134317/blurhash-993c60d.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a690bde5a30d6f157d4668fa06e6b239b5ec583a3aed0ede41a4dd08e139590e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a690bde5a30d6f157d4668fa06e6b239b5ec583a3aed0ede41a4dd08e139590e


Requires
--------
blurhash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    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)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

blurhash-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    blurhash(x86-64)
    libblurhash.so.0()(64bit)

blurhash-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

blurhash-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
blurhash:
    blurhash
    blurhash(x86-64)
    libblurhash.so.0()(64bit)

blurhash-devel:
    blurhash-devel
    blurhash-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(blurhash)

blurhash-debuginfo:
    blurhash-debuginfo
    blurhash-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libblurhash.so.0.1-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

blurhash-debugsource:
    blurhash-debugsource
    blurhash-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2170364
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Ruby, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Python, fonts, Perl, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a) Is it possible to use the packages stb_image_devel and stb_image_write-devel instead of
the bundled headers?
b) If these must be bundled, note they have different licenses to the main package.
c) There are tests (blurhash-tests), a benchmark (blurhash-decode-bench) and example executables
(blurhash and blurhash2bmp). These can be built by passing options 
meson configure . -Dtests=true -Dexamples=true -Dbenchmarks=true
The test requires doctest-devel which should be obtained from the Fedora packages, but
if it is problematic to enable it, using the benchmark or running an example seems like
a sufficient smoke tests.  Maybe it is also good to package blurhash and blurhash2bmp?

Comment 3 Vitaly 2023-02-17 17:31:40 UTC
> a) Is it possible to use the packages stb_image_devel and stb_image_write-devel instead of
the bundled headers?

We use only blurhash.cpp and blurhash.hpp.

> c) There are tests (blurhash-tests), a benchmark (blurhash-decode-bench) and example executables
> (blurhash and blurhash2bmp). These can be built by passing options 
> meson configure . -Dtests=true -Dexamples=true -Dbenchmarks=true

Tests can be enabled, but I don't want to enable examples and benchmarks due to bundled libraries and Koji utilization for no reason.

> Maybe it is also good to package blurhash and blurhash2bmp?

We need only blurhash.cpp and blurhash.hpp for building nheko: https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko/pull/1376

Comment 4 Benson Muite 2023-02-17 17:37:54 UTC
a) Ok. Can stb_image_devel.h and stb_image_write-devel.h be removed before building?
c) Ok, please enable tests.

There are several other implementations https://github.com/woltapp/blurhash
maybe the name nheko-blurhash or blurhash-cpp should be used?

Comment 5 Vitaly 2023-02-17 17:55:40 UTC
> a) Ok. Can stb_image_devel.h and stb_image_write-devel.h be removed before building?

Done.

> c) Ok, please enable tests.

Done.

> maybe the name nheko-blurhash or blurhash-cpp should be used?

You're right. Switched to blurhash-cpp.

Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/blurhash-cpp.spec
SRPM URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/blurhash-cpp-0.0.1-1.20221023git993c60d.fc37.src.rpm

Comment 6 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-02-17 18:04:13 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5538354
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2170364-blurhash-cpp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05538354-blurhash-cpp/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.

Comment 7 Benson Muite 2023-02-17 19:06:43 UTC
Approved.

Comment 8 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-02-17 20:44:42 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/blurhash-cpp

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-02-17 21:15:47 UTC
FEDORA-2023-ab527fc579 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ab527fc579

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2023-02-17 21:15:48 UTC
FEDORA-2023-65115faa89 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-65115faa89

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2023-02-18 02:21:57 UTC
FEDORA-2023-65115faa89 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-2023-65115faa89 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-65115faa89

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-02-18 02:37:58 UTC
FEDORA-2023-ab527fc579 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-2023-ab527fc579 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ab527fc579

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-02-23 01:24:14 UTC
FEDORA-2023-65115faa89 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2023-02-23 02:18:36 UTC
FEDORA-2023-ab527fc579 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.