Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libuvc/libuvc.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libuvc/libuvc-0.0.7-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: libuvc is a cross-platform library for USB video devices, built atop libusb. It enables fine-grained control over USB video devices exporting the standard USB Video Class (UVC) interface, enabling developers to write drivers for previously unsupported devices, or just access UVC devices in a generic fashion. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107751177
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6546395 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244980-libuvc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546395-libuvc/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++: [-]: 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 1-Clause License". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2244980-libuvc/licensecheck.txt * include/utlist.h has BSD-1-Clause and seems to be used in build. Must be appended to 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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9827 bytes in 2 files. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libuvc-0.0.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libuvc-devel-0.0.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libuvc-doc-0.0.7-1.fc40.noarch.rpm libuvc-debuginfo-0.0.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libuvc-debugsource-0.0.7-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libuvc-0.0.7-1.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/tmphrl_lf93')] checks: 31, packages: 6 libuvc-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libuvc-doc/cameras/ms_lifecam_show.txt =========== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libuvc-debuginfo-0.0.7-1.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/tmpfzp0ypba')] checks: 31, packages: 1 =========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 5 libuvc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libusb', '%description -l en_US libusb -> libelous') libuvc-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libuvc-doc/cameras/ms_lifecam_show.txt 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 32 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libuvc/libuvc/archive/v0.0.7/libuvc-0.0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7c6ba79723ad5d0ccdfbe6cadcfbd03f9f75b701d7ba96631eb1fd929a86ee72 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c6ba79723ad5d0ccdfbe6cadcfbd03f9f75b701d7ba96631eb1fd929a86ee72 Requires -------- libuvc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEGTURBO_6.2)(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libuvc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libuvc(x86-64) libuvc.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(libusb-1.0) libuvc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libuvc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libuvc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libuvc: libuvc libuvc(x86-64) libuvc.so.0()(64bit) libuvc-devel: cmake(libuvc) libuvc-devel libuvc-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libuvc) libuvc-doc: libuvc-doc libuvc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libuvc-debuginfo libuvc-debuginfo(x86-64) libuvc.so.0.0.7-0.0.7-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libuvc-debugsource: libuvc-debugsource libuvc-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244980 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, R, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Found just missing BSD-1-Clause from License tag. otherwise everything looks correct.
Thanks for the review! Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libuvc/libuvc.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libuvc/libuvc-0.0.7-1.fc40.src.rpm Changelog: - update license tag
Created attachment 2002932 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6546395 to 6729406
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6729406 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244980-libuvc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06729406-libuvc/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.
Great, passing the review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libuvc
FEDORA-2023-23562db08f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-23562db08f
FEDORA-2023-23562db08f has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-f2cf091ecd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f2cf091ecd
FEDORA-2023-dffe48efec has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dffe48efec
FEDORA-2023-f2cf091ecd has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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-f2cf091ecd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f2cf091ecd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-dffe48efec 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-dffe48efec \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dffe48efec See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-f2cf091ecd has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-dffe48efec has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.