Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06171789-qoi/qoi.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06171789-qoi/qoi-20230615git36190eb-1.fc39.src.rpm Upstream: https://github.com/phoboslab/qoi Description: Binaries (qoibench and qoiconv) for fast, lossless image compression using the "Quite OK Image Format". Fedora Account System Username: errornointernet Sorry for any mistakes made. This is one of my first packages, and I am in need of a sponsor.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6171803 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222844-qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06171803-qoi/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.
Updated .spec file to also include the -devel package. New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06172030-qoi/qoi.spec New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06172030-qoi/qoi-20230615git36190eb-2.fc39.src.rpm
*** Bug 2222846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 1975737 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6171803 to 6172039
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6172039 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222844-qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06172039-qoi/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.
> %install > mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_includedir} > cp qoi.h %{buildroot}/%{_includedir} 1. You should aim to preserve file timestamps. You can use "cp -a" or "cp --preserve=timestamps". https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps 2. Using "cp" is fine, but I think that most .spec files use "install" instead. "install -d" can also be used to create directories. > %files devel > %license LICENSE > %doc README.md The -devel package has a hard "Requires:" on the base package, so these files can be omitted. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing Also, looking at the copr build made by the review service: > gcc -std=c99 -O3 -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer qoiconv.c -o qoiconv This does not include Fedora's LDFLAGS. You'll need to either modify the Makefile to include those in the gcc invocation, or call the compiler manually.
Thanks for your reply :) > This does not include Fedora's LDFLAGS. You'll need to either modify the Makefile to include those in the gcc invocation, or call the compiler manually. I have now added a patch (Makefile-ldflags.patch) for the Makefile to include LDFLAGS. Changes: - Used `install -d` and `install -p` instead of `cp` - Added `Requires: %{name}%{?isa} = %{version}-%{release}` to the -devel package - Added LDFLAGS patch New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06176114-qoi/qoi.spec New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06176114-qoi/qoi-20230615git36190eb-3.fc39.src.rpm Makefile-ldflags.patch: https://github.com/ErrorNoInternet/rpm-specs/raw/main/qoi/Makefile-ldflags.patch
Overall the package looks good, just two suggestions from my side: Usually with library packages, the main package contains the dynamic libraries, and -devel the header files. Any extra tools can either go into the main package, or into a -tools subpackage. Since qoi is (currently?) a header-only library, I think it could be a good idea to move the tools into a -tools subpackage, and omit building the main package. This would enable you to make the devel package noarch and save users from having to install unneeded dependencies. In Makefile-ldflags.patch, you put LDFLAGS next to CFLAGS. It's usually best to place these at the end of the compiler invocation. Sorry for the long wait.
Changes: - Bumped version - Moved binaries to -tools package - Moved LDFLAGS/CFLAGS to the end of the command New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06358041-qoi/qoi.spec New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06358041-qoi/qoi-20230828git41e8f84-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1986237 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6172039 to 6358052
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6358052 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222844-qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06358052-qoi/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.
Hi Ryan, sorry for making you wait so long for a reply. > %global commit 41e8f84bf68f7bb658430a37b5647c172d86e38e > %global snapdate 20230828 > > Version: %{snapdate}git%(c='%{commit}'; echo "${c:0:7}") This will produce a package with version "20230828git...". The recommended way is to use caret-versioning instead: "0^%{snapdate}..." https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_upstream_has_never_chosen_a_version > %files > > %files tools > ... > > %files devel > ... A setup like this will result in the build process producing an empty "qoi" package that contains no files. Remove the "%files" line - this will make it so the build produces only qoi-devel and qoi-tools. You can then drop "Requires: %{name}%{?isa} = %{version}-%{release}" from the subpackages. > %files tools > %license LICENSE > ... > %files devel > > %changelog Since -devel is independent from -tools, and it is possible to install only one of those packages, both of them should include a copy of the licence text. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing
Fixed :) (also updated version) New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06512557-qoi/qoi.spec New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06512557-qoi/qoi-0%5E20230911-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1993183 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6358052 to 6512602
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6512602 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222844-qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06512602-qoi/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.
Looks good overall, just one minor issue: You must add "Provides: qoi-static = %{version}-%{release}" to the -devel package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries Please update the changelog as well and then we'll be golden. Alternatively, consider switching to %autochangelog. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
Done, New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06525914-qoi/qoi.spec New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06525914-qoi/qoi-0%5E20230911-2.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1994089 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6512602 to 6528072
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6528072 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222844-qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06528072-qoi/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.
Hi Ryan, can you resubmit the COPR build, or post the spec & srpm somewhere else? Looks like the latest files got garbage-collected.
Here you go .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06593843-qoi/qoi.spec .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06593843-qoi/qoi-0%5E20230911-2.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6593848 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222844-qoi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06593848-qoi/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 is APPROVED. One thing you should change is to include the git commit hash in the version information, like this: > %global commit_short %(c="%{commit}"; echo "${c:0:7}") > Version: 0^%{snapdate}.%{commit_short} Or alternatively: > %global commit_short %(c="%{commit}"; echo "${c:0:7}") > Version: 0^%{snapdate}git%{commit_short} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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. [-]: 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 11643 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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. Note: link successful scratch build in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108569243 [-]: %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]: 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: qoi-tools-0^20230911-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm qoi-devel-0^20230911-2.fc40.noarch.rpm qoi-debugsource-0^20230911-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm qoi-0^20230911-2.fc40.src.rpm ============== rpmlint session starts ============= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp1c2803c3')] checks: 31, packages: 4 qoi-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qoibench qoi-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qoiconv qoi-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ============= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ============ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qoi-tools-debuginfo-0^20230911-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============== rpmlint session starts ============= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmplujfjcp2')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ======== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ======= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 qoi-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qoibench qoi-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qoiconv qoi-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/phoboslab/qoi/archive/8d35d93cdca85d2868246c2a8a80a1e2c16ba2a8/qoi-8d35d93cdca85d2868246c2a8a80a1e2c16ba2a8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00f10a37021d1f75c78a94a95cf45500177b6f78e9a9b27cef49237798bd4db4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00f10a37021d1f75c78a94a95cf45500177b6f78e9a9b27cef49237798bd4db4 Requires -------- qoi-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qoi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qoi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- qoi-tools: qoi-tools qoi-tools(x86-64) qoi-devel: qoi-devel qoi-static qoi-debugsource: qoi-debugsource qoi-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2222844 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Hello @errornointernet, since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package sponsor before it can be accepted. A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to packaging. You can find all active sponsors here: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/ I created a sponsorship request for you: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/600 Please take a look and make sure the information is correct. Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qoi