Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/mmlib.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/mmlib-1.4.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: mmlib is an Operating System abstraction layer. It provides an API for application developer, so that they can write portable code using relatively advanced OS features without having to care about system specifics. The reference design in mind in its conception is POSIX, meaning that if some posix functionality is not available for given platform, mmlib will implement that same functionality itself. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98686252 F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98686254 F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98686255 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98686256 This library is required for updating eegview[1] to version 1.0[2]. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/eegview/ [2] https://github.com/mmlabs-mindmaze/eegview/releases/tag/1.0
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5640709 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2178190-mmlib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05640709-mmlib/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. => License string appears to be incomplete. See: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2178190-mmlib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05640709-mmlib/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. => The main package does not contain any doc files. I would suggest to make README.md and TODO.md part of the main package. Maybe the example/ dir as well. ===== 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. [!]: 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", "Apache License 2.0", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* NTP License". 183 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sandro/devel/fedora/fedora- review/2178190-mmlib/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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 8 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). [?]: 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. [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: [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.
Thank you for the review! (In reply to Sandro from comment #2) > ===== Issues ===== > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > => License string appears to be incomplete. See: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora- > review-2178190-mmlib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05640709-mmlib/fedora-review/ > licensecheck.txt I think it’s complete. The following are the files for which licensecheck detects something other than Apache-2.0: *No copyright* NTP License -------------------------- mmlib-1.4.2/src/mmtime.h FSF All Permissive License -------------------------- mmlib-1.4.2/m4/mm_python_module.m4 For src/mmtime.h, if you look at the file itself, there is nothing about licenses at all. Instead, licensecheck is confused because the file happens to mention NTP—the software, not the license—in a comment. We may safely assume that the license for this file matches the rest of the software. For m4/mm_python_module.m4, this is an m4 script that belongs to the autotools build system. It would be used via autogen.sh to build the configure script from configure.ac. Since the file is not installed directly, and its contents are not compiled into anything that appears in the binary RPMs, its license does not contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs. (We don’t even use the autotools build system for the RPM, preferring Meson instead, but the preceding applies either way.) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field > > [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > => The main package does not contain any doc files. I would suggest to make > README.md and TODO.md part of the main package. Maybe the example/ dir as > well. I don’t feel too strongly about whether README.md and TODO.md should appear in the base/library package or not. I am not convinced they are wrong as they are, but I do not mind moving them from the -devel package to the base package. I am not convinced there is a use case where installing the examples in the base package makes sense; who will want C sources that demonstrate developing programs that use the library, but will not want the headers and unversioned .so link needed to do so themselves? I plan to leave the examples in the -devel package.
In the following, README.md and TODO.md have been moved from mmlib-devel to mmlib. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230329/mmlib.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230329/mmlib-1.4.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Created attachment 1954412 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5640709 to 5726681
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5726681 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2178190-mmlib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05726681-mmlib/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.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3) > Thank you for the review! > > (In reply to Sandro from comment #2) > > ===== Issues ===== > > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > => License string appears to be incomplete. See: > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora- > > review-2178190-mmlib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05640709-mmlib/fedora-review/ > > licensecheck.txt > > I think it’s complete. The following are the files for which licensecheck > detects something other than Apache-2.0: > > *No copyright* NTP License > -------------------------- > mmlib-1.4.2/src/mmtime.h > > FSF All Permissive License > -------------------------- > mmlib-1.4.2/m4/mm_python_module.m4 Your explanation makes sense. No action required. I should have looked into the files myself. Thanks for the extended feedback. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #4) > In the following, README.md and TODO.md have been moved from mmlib-devel to > mmlib. I think it makes sense to have these in the main package (and it means one less warning from rpmlint). Keeping examples/ in the devel package is also okay. All in all ==> APPROVED!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mmlib
Thanks again for the review!
FEDORA-2023-74c61b728f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-74c61b728f
FEDORA-2023-74c61b728f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-29e6883292 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-29e6883292
FEDORA-2023-c558888954 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c558888954
FEDORA-2023-9f1759144f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9f1759144f
FEDORA-2023-9f1759144f 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-2023-9f1759144f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9f1759144f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-29e6883292 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-29e6883292 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-c558888954 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-c558888954 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c558888954 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92196bc05e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92196bc05e
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5bd7956df1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5bd7956df1
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92196bc05e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92196bc05e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5bd7956df1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5bd7956df1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-9f1759144f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-c558888954 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92196bc05e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5bd7956df1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-29e6883292 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.