Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libheif.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libheif-1.15.1-2.fc37.src.rpm Description: libheif is an ISO/IEC 23008-12:2017 HEIF and AVIF (AV1 Image File Format) file format decoder and encoder. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Drive-by comments: MUST: License tag needs to be updated to SPDX. Optional stuff: The spec layout is a bit unusual in that subpackage sections include %files lists. I'd rearrange to follow the usual layout (all %files at the end before %changelog). It's sufficient to conditionalize only the %files section of the hevc subpackage. RPM will not try to produce binary RPM with a missing %files section. I'd also drop the separator comments (# ----------------------------------------------------------------------) as I don't see any value in them. I'd change -f to -v in the rm command below: find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -or -name '*.a' | xargs rm -f for better visibility of what (if anything) is getting deleted here and failure if there's nothing to delete (because the command is redundant and should be removed then). Other than that, LGTM.
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #1) > Drive-by comments: > > MUST: License tag needs to be updated to SPDX. > Fixed. > Optional stuff: > > The spec layout is a bit unusual in that subpackage sections include %files > lists. I'd rearrange to follow the usual layout (all %files at the end > before %changelog). > > It's sufficient to conditionalize only the %files section of the hevc > subpackage. RPM will not try to produce binary RPM with a missing %files > section. > > I'd also drop the separator comments (# > ----------------------------------------------------------------------) as I > don't see any value in them. > I prefer this style when I have conditionalized subpackages as it makes it much clearer what's going on. > I'd change -f to -v in the rm command below: > find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -or -name '*.a' | xargs rm -f > for better visibility of what (if anything) is getting deleted here and > failure if there's nothing to delete (because the command is redundant and > should be removed then). > Good suggestion, fixed. > Other than that, LGTM. I've updated the package and spec in place for this.
Looks like there were no .la or .a files to remove. It fails to build in mock. :) + find /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libheif-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64 -name '*.la' -or -name '*.a' + xargs rm -v rm: missing operand So, running review with the above line removed from spec.
Ok, so the only thing I found is that there are tests in the test/ subdirectory. It'd be nice if they were executed in %check. Package is APPROVED regardless. 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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", "MIT License GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF All Permissive License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Boost Software License 1.0". 92 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rathann/review-libheif/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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. [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]: 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: libheif-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm heif-pixbuf-loader-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm libheif-tools-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm libheif-devel-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm libheif-debuginfo-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm libheif-debugsource-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm libheif-1.15.1-2.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/tmpw8qz6_hf')] checks: 31, packages: 7 heif-pixbuf-loader.x86_64: W: no-documentation ======================== 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s ======================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libheif-tools-debuginfo-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm libheif-debuginfo-1.15.1-2.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/tmppz6fdg_s')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ======================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 7 heif-pixbuf-loader.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.3 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- libheif: /usr/lib64/libheif/libheif-rav1e.so libheif: /usr/lib64/libheif/libheif-svtenc.so heif-pixbuf-loader: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-heif.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/strukturag/libheif/archive/v1.15.1/libheif-1.15.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0333924bf63d2cd09a021d18d02860eb218cf81b8e6f57d490c505207a59285b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0333924bf63d2cd09a021d18d02860eb218cf81b8e6f57d490c505207a59285b Requires -------- libheif (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libSvtAv1Enc.so.1()(64bit) libaom.so.3()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdav1d.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) libheif.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librav1e.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) heif-pixbuf-loader (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gdk-pixbuf2(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libheif(x86-64) libheif.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libheif-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc 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) libheif(x86-64) libheif.so.1()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shared-mime-info libheif-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libheif(x86-64) libheif.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(aom) pkgconfig(dav1d) libheif-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libheif-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libheif: libheif libheif(x86-64) libheif-rav1e.so()(64bit) libheif-svtenc.so()(64bit) libheif.so.1()(64bit) heif-pixbuf-loader: heif-pixbuf-loader heif-pixbuf-loader(x86-64) libpixbufloader-heif.so()(64bit) libheif-tools: libheif-tools libheif-tools(x86-64) libheif-devel: cmake(libheif) libheif-devel libheif-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libheif) libheif-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libheif-debuginfo libheif-debuginfo(x86-64) libheif-rav1e.so-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libheif-svtenc.so-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libheif.so.1.15.1-1.15.1-2.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libheif-debugsource: libheif-debugsource libheif-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libheif Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, R, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libheif
> Looks like there were no .la or .a files to remove. It fails to build in mock. :) Removed. > Ok, so the only thing I found is that there are tests in the test/ subdirectory. > It'd be nice if they were executed in %check. Package is APPROVED regardless. The tests haven't been ported to CMake, so they don't run when I use ctest at the moment. I made a comment about this in the spec on import.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5ac211d78f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5ac211d78f
FEDORA-2023-00a7fd4c67 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-00a7fd4c67
FEDORA-2023-fca0992d0e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5ac211d78f 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-2023-5ac211d78f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-00a7fd4c67 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-00a7fd4c67 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-30d47d0fcc 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-2023-30d47d0fcc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-30d47d0fcc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-00a7fd4c67 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-3eadb47c64 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3eadb47c64
FEDORA-2023-3eadb47c64 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3eadb47c64 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-30d47d0fcc has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5ac211d78f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-3eadb47c64 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.