Old abandoned review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/libsixel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06221715-libsixel/libsixel.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/libsixel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06221715-libsixel/libsixel-1.10.3-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: An encoder/decoder implementation for DEC SIXEL graphics. Fedora Account System Username: errornointernet This is one of my first packages, and I am in need of a sponsor.
> %files > [...] > %{_libdir}/libsixel.a > %{_libdir}/libsixel.so > %{_libdir}/libsixel.so.1 > %{_libdir}/libsixel.so.1.0.0 > > %files devel > %{_bindir}/libsixel-config > %{_includedir}/sixel.h > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libsixel.pc Two things here: 1) The unversioned .so file should go in the -devel package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages 2) Building static libraries (.a) is discouraged. If you want to keep it, then it should go into a separate -static package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries > * Sat Jul 29 2023 ErrorNoInternet <errornointernet> - 1.10.3-1 > - Hello, world! Hello, indeed! You way want to change this to "Initial packaging" or something of the like. :)
Done :) New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/libsixel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06355859-libsixel/libsixel.spec New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/libsixel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06355859-libsixel/libsixel-1.10.3-2.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6357989 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2227397-libsixel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06357989-libsixel/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.
The upstream repo includes some tests. Please add building and running them to the spec. You can do this by adding "-Dtests=enable" to the initial %meson call, and then adding a %check section to the spec: > %check > %meson_test
Done :) (used -Dtests=enabled instead of enable) New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/libsixel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06384466-libsixel/libsixel.spec New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/libsixel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06384466-libsixel/libsixel-1.10.3-3.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1987681 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6357989 to 6384501
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6384501 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2227397-libsixel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06384501-libsixel/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 approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "MIT License", "NTP License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "NTP License MIT License FSF All Permissive License", "NTP License MIT License", "The Unlicense MIT License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]". 298 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuilder/fedora- review/2227397-libsixel/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. [-]: 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 38982 bytes in 3 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). [?]: 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. Note: Successfully built (--scratch) in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106149509 [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsixel-1.10.3-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsixel-devel-1.10.3-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsixel-utils-1.10.3-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsixel-debuginfo-1.10.3-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsixel-debugsource-1.10.3-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsixel-1.10.3-3.fc40.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/tmp27ctjpw1')] checks: 31, packages: 6 libsixel-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libsixel-config ============= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s ============ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsixel-debuginfo-1.10.3-3.fc40.x86_64.rpm libsixel-utils-debuginfo-1.10.3-3.fc40.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/tmphp7pfif7')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ============= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 6 libsixel-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libsixel-config 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libsixel/libsixel/archive/v1.10.3/libsixel-1.10.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 028552eb8f2a37c6effda88ee5e8f6d87b5d9601182ddec784a9728865f821e0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 028552eb8f2a37c6effda88ee5e8f6d87b5d9601182ddec784a9728865f821e0 Requires -------- libsixel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgd.so.3()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEGTURBO_6.2)(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libsixel-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/sh libsixel(x86-64) libsixel.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(libjpeg) pkgconfig(libpng) libsixel-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libsixel(x86-64) libsixel.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libsixel-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsixel-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libsixel: libsixel libsixel(x86-64) libsixel.so.1()(64bit) libsixel-devel: libsixel-devel libsixel-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libsixel) libsixel-utils: libsixel-utils libsixel-utils(x86-64) libsixel-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsixel-debuginfo libsixel-debuginfo(x86-64) libsixel.so.1.0.0-1.10.3-3.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libsixel-debugsource: libsixel-debugsource libsixel-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2227397 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Python, fonts, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, 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/591 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
I've sponsored you, welcome to the packaging fun!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsixel
Thanks to everyone for the help!