Spec URL: https://marcan.fedorapeople.org/asahi-audio.spec SRPM URL: https://marcan.fedorapeople.org/asahi-audio-0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: PipeWire and WirePlumber DSP profiles and configurations to drive the speaker arrays in Apple Silicon laptops and desktops. Fedora Account System Username: marcan
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108659933
Some quick feedback: - don't use the forge macros, they're not in great shape and aren't actually needed here; just do something like URL: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/asahi-audio Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - should we also require speakersafetyd? - add %doc README.md to the %files section to get it included
speakersafetyd is not directly related to this package (yet?) and technically optional (you actually get usable volume without it, just not loud) so it probably doesn't make sense as a hard dep. Recommends?
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #2) > Some quick feedback: > > - don't use the forge macros, they're not in great shape and aren't actually > needed here; just do something like > URL: https://github.com/AsahiLinux/asahi-audio > Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > - should we also require speakersafetyd? > - add %doc README.md to the %files section to get it included PS: While I generally agree that the %forge macros are definitely not needed in a simple case like this, they *are* being actively maintained again. So for more complicated packages (like packages with multiple sources that are all git snapshots or something), they are definitely a good choice. But here, you don't gain anything by using them except additional indirection.
> speakersafetyd is not directly related to this package (yet?) and technically optional (you actually get usable volume without it, just not loud) so it probably doesn't make sense as a hard dep. Recommends? Yep, Recommends seems appropriate then > PS: While I generally agree that the %forge macros are definitely not needed in a simple case like this, they *are* being actively maintained again. So for more complicated packages (like packages with multiple sources that are all git snapshots or something), they are definitely a good choice. But here, you don't gain anything by using them except additional indirection. Ah, good to know, thanks. Last I checked they were generating version strings that didn't match the latest policy guidelines, so I stopped using them. I'll have to check them out again.
Updated the spec&SRPM with the changes, thanks!
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2248164-asahi- audio/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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]: 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 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 2750 bytes in 1 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). [x]: 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. [-]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: asahi-audio-0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm asahi-audio-0.2-1.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/tmpig9bp_gr')] checks: 31, packages: 2 asahi-audio.src: W: strange-permission asahi-audio.spec 600 asahi-audio.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 2265740 asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/tweeters-192.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/tweeters-192.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/tweeters-44.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/tweeters-44.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/tweeters-48.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/tweeters-48.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/tweeters-96.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/tweeters-96.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/woofers-192.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/woofers-192.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/woofers-44.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/woofers-44.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/woofers-48.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/woofers-48.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/woofers-96.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/woofers-96.wav 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings, 1 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: 1 asahi-audio.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 2265740 asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/tweeters-192.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/tweeters-192.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/tweeters-44.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/tweeters-44.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/tweeters-48.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/tweeters-48.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/tweeters-96.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/tweeters-96.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/woofers-192.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/woofers-192.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/woofers-44.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/woofers-44.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/woofers-48.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/woofers-48.wav asahi-audio.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/asahi-audio/j316/woofers-96.wav /usr/share/asahi-audio/j314/woofers-96.wav 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AsahiLinux/asahi-audio/archive/v0.2/asahi-audio-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 62483bea879dae54109e85a0cdbc2f8da7eac402c75688a9abe43b79fdf0bca5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 62483bea879dae54109e85a0cdbc2f8da7eac402c75688a9abe43b79fdf0bca5 Requires -------- asahi-audio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lsp-plugins-lv2 lv2-bankstown pipewire pipewire-module-filter-chain-lv2 wireplumber Provides -------- asahi-audio: asahi-audio Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/2248164-asahi-audio/srpm/asahi-audio.spec 2023-11-06 08:26:01.660478913 -0800 +++ /tmp/2248164-asahi-audio/srpm-unpacked/asahi-audio.spec 2023-11-05 16:00:00.000000000 -0800 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: asahi-audio Version: 0.2 @@ -38,3 +48,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Mon Nov 06 2023 John Doe <packager> - 0.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2248164 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, R, PHP, C/C++, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The only relevant thing is: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d indeed this doesn't seem to be provided by any other package afaict. For now, I'd recommend just owning it with %dir here. Long term it's probably worth discussing with pipewire whether they should just create this and own it in their package.
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #8) > The only relevant thing is: > > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/pipewire/pipewire.conf.d > > indeed this doesn't seem to be provided by any other package afaict. For > now, I'd recommend just owning it with %dir here. Long term it's probably > worth discussing with pipewire whether they should just create this and own > it in their package. I would suggest just making a pull request to the pipewire package to fix it now.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pipewire/pull-request/21 (aside: those dupe files are expected since j316 is temporarily a copy&paste of j314, it will get separate IRs later)
(In reply to Hector Martin from comment #10) > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pipewire/pull-request/21 > This will land in F38+ today, so we can assume this is taken care of now.
Everything else looks good, so it's APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/asahi-audio
FEDORA-2023-eecdde2a32 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-eecdde2a32
FEDORA-2023-7348ccea65 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7348ccea65
FEDORA-2023-eecdde2a32 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-7348ccea65 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.