Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nanosvg.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nanosvg-20221221-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: NanoSVG is a simple stupid single-header-file SVG parse. The output of the parser is a list of cubic bezier shapes. The library suits well for anything from rendering scalable icons in your editor application to prototyping a game. Fedora Account System Username: spot Koji Rawhide Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104646933
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6264267 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231148-nanosvg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06264267-nanosvg/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 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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", "zlib License", "*No copyright* zlib License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/nanosvg/2231148-nanosvg/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. [ ]: 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 12324 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). [ ]: 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. [!]: %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]: 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: nanosvg-20221221-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm nanosvg-devel-20221221-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm nanosvg-debuginfo-20221221-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm nanosvg-debugsource-20221221-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm nanosvg-20221221-1.fc38.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/tmpjg845re8')] checks: 31, packages: 5 nanosvg.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: nanosvg-lib64.patch nanosvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ============= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.6 s ============= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nanosvg-debuginfo-20221221-1.fc38.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/tmpevh5wb6q')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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 nanosvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fltk/nanosvg/archive/abcd277ea45e9098bed752cf9c6875b533c0892f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 700f6c7b246a9d132fdc061f167df20b87312bc6d9bc2fc68034b1ad7cd24307 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 700f6c7b246a9d132fdc061f167df20b87312bc6d9bc2fc68034b1ad7cd24307 Requires -------- nanosvg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) nanosvg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libnanosvg.so.0()(64bit) libnanosvgrast.so.0()(64bit) nanosvg(x86-64) nanosvg-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nanosvg-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nanosvg: libnanosvg.so.0()(64bit) libnanosvgrast.so.0()(64bit) nanosvg nanosvg(x86-64) nanosvg-devel: cmake(NanoSVG) cmake(nanosvg) nanosvg-devel nanosvg-devel(x86-64) nanosvg-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libnanosvg.so.0-20221221-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libnanosvgrast.so.0-20221221-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) nanosvg-debuginfo nanosvg-debuginfo(x86-64) nanosvg-debugsource: nanosvg-debugsource nanosvg-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2231148 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Ruby, R, Java, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Is it worth trying to get the changes in the patches merged to the new FLTK upstream, or raising issues for them to be considered? b) Could the examples or one of the examples be compiled and run as a smoke test? c) The package has tags, maybe these can be used for versioning instead of the commit? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
a) The changes in the Fedora package exist in pending pull requests to the original repo. I've added comments to reflect this. b) Example1 wants to draw a window on a screen, so it probably isn't super helpful for this, but example2 might work as a smoke test. I'll run it. c) The tags are... just the dates of commits, which is what I ended up using for the version. That said, I have a preference for using a commit over a tag, especially later when upstream forgets it made tags. New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nanosvg-20221221-2.fc39.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nanosvg.spec
Created attachment 1983020 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6264267 to 6266495
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6266495 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231148-nanosvg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06266495-nanosvg/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Thanks Fedora Review Service, you caught my bug. :) My build-examples patch assumed the presence of an installed nanosvg, which it should not have done. -3 should work properly in isolation. New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nanosvg-20221221-3.fc39.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/nanosvg.spec
Created attachment 1983040 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6266495 to 6266577
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6266577 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231148-nanosvg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06266577-nanosvg/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.
Seems ok. Approved. In addition to referencing the motivations for the patches that add a soname and update the install location, maybe it is helpful to have these incorporated into the maintained fork. Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227454 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2223901 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218044 Would be appreciated if time allows.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nanosvg
FEDORA-2023-4e0d364aeb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4e0d364aeb
FEDORA-2023-487a2818cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-487a2818cc
FEDORA-2023-4e0d364aeb has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4e0d364aeb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4e0d364aeb See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-487a2818cc 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-2023-487a2818cc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-487a2818cc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-487a2818cc has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-4e0d364aeb has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.