Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ffms2/ffms2.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ffms2/ffms2-5.0~rc3-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: FFmpegSource (usually known as FFMS or FFMS2) is a cross-platform wrapper library around FFmpeg. It gives you an easy, convenient way to say "open and decompress this media file for me, I don't care how you do it" and get frame- and sample-accurate access (usually), without having to bother with the sometimes less than straightforward and less than perfectly documented FFmpeg API. Fedora Account System Username: rathann
> # run ffms2-samples.sh to fetch samples from upstream > Source1: ffms2-samples.tar.gz Shouldn't this be included as one of the Sources?
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ffms2/ffms2.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ffms2/ffms2-5.0-1.fc41.src.rpm * Sun Jun 09 2024 Dominik Mierzejewski <dominik> - 5.0-1 - update to 5.0
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #1) > > # run ffms2-samples.sh to fetch samples from upstream > > Source1: ffms2-samples.tar.gz > Shouldn't this be included as one of the Sources? It should. Sorry for missing it earlier. It is included now.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7583335 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2274319-ffms2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07583335-ffms2/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.
BTW using '--enable-shared=yes --enable-static=no' instead of '--disable-static' truly avoid building the static library which is then removed in %install.
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #5) > BTW using '--enable-shared=yes --enable-static=no' instead of > '--disable-static' truly avoid building the static library which is then > removed in %install. Only the .la file is there (and getting removed), not the shared library.
@Arthur do you want to do the review yourself or should I?
It's on my to-do list, but if you want, feel free to take over.
I have some spare time today, so I'm taking over the review.
Couple of things to check: ffms2-5.0/src/index/vsutf16.h is licensed LGPL-2.1-or-later ffms2.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libffms2.so.5.0.0 /lib64/libvapoursynth.so.68 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/CommonRpmlintIssues/#unused_direct_shlib_dependency 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License and/or MIT License", "FSF All Permissive License", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /review/2274319-ffms2/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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 135809 bytes in 5 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: ffms2-5.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ffms2-devel-5.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ffms2-debuginfo-5.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ffms2-debugsource-5.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ffms2-5.0-1.fc41.src.rpm =================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmptpej2gwk')] checks: 32, packages: 5 ffms2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffmsindex ffms2.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: ffms2-samples.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 35 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ffms2-debuginfo-5.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm =================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwjhwgi3a')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 4 ffms2.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libffms2.so.5.0.0 /lib64/libvapoursynth.so.68 ffms2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffmsindex 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 33 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FFMS/ffms2/archive/5.0/ffms2-5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7770af0bbc0063f9580a6a5c8e7c51f1788f171d7da0b352e48a1e60943a8c3c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7770af0bbc0063f9580a6a5c8e7c51f1788f171d7da0b352e48a1e60943a8c3c Requires -------- ffms2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libavcodec.so.60()(64bit) libavcodec.so.60(LIBAVCODEC_60)(64bit) libavformat.so.60()(64bit) libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit) libavutil.so.58()(64bit) libavutil.so.58(LIBAVUTIL_58)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libffms2.so.5()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libswresample.so.4()(64bit) libswresample.so.4(LIBSWRESAMPLE_4)(64bit) libswscale.so.7()(64bit) libswscale.so.7(LIBSWSCALE_7)(64bit) libvapoursynth.so.68()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ffms2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config ffms2(x86-64) libffms2.so.5()(64bit) pkgconfig(libavcodec) pkgconfig(libavformat) pkgconfig(libavutil) pkgconfig(libswresample) pkgconfig(libswscale) ffms2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ffms2-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ffms2: ffms2 ffms2(x86-64) libffms2.so.5()(64bit) ffms2-devel: ffms2-devel ffms2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ffms2) ffms2-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ffms2-debuginfo ffms2-debuginfo(x86-64) libffms2.so.5.0.0-5.0-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) ffms2-debugsource: ffms2-debugsource ffms2-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: ffms2-5.0-build/ffms2-5.0/configure.ac:61 Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2274319 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, R, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ffms2/ffms2.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ffms2/ffms2-5.0-2.fc42.src.rpm * Fri Sep 06 2024 Dominik Mierzejewski <dominik> - 5.0-2 - correct license tag - fix unused-direct-shlib-dependency rpmlint error - fix tests - use latest C++ standard
Created attachment 2045645 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7583335 to 7990338
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7990338 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2274319-ffms2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07990338-ffms2/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.
I still get the 'unushed-direct-shlib-dependency' error: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 4 ffms2.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libffms2.so.5.0.0 /lib64/libvapoursynth.so.68 ffms2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffmsindex 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 31 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s Perhaps the configuration used in COPR disables that check?
The unused-direct-shlib-dependency is visible only in rpmlint -i ffms2 (installed package) output. I guess linking to the library is simply the wrong thing to do. Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ffms2/ffms2.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/ffms2/ffms2-5.0-3.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2047921 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7990338 to 8045109
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8045109 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2274319-ffms2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08045109-ffms2/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 now, package APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffms2