Spec URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/polyclipping2.spec SRPM URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/polyclipping2-1.3.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: polygon clipping library (clipper2) Fedora Account System Username: sailer This is a complete rewrite by the original author in more modern C++ of the polyclipping (clipper) library we already have packaged.
*** Bug 2290546 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7532107 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2290548-polyclipping2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07532107-polyclipping2/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.
> Summary: Polygon clipping library v2 Upstream calls it "Polygon Clipping and Offsetting Library" > Source0: https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/archive/refs/tags/Clipper2_%{version}.tar.gz > Patch0: clipper2-removegtest.patch > Patch1: clipper2-compile.patch Should change to unnumbered Source/Patch. > pushd CPP > %cmake > %check > pushd CPP > %if 0%{?fedora} > pushd redhat-linux-build > %endif Instead you should set _vpath_srcdir to CPP so you can call the %cmake macros like normal, and then use %_vpath_builddir instead of hardcoding the build directory. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/vpath/ > %{_libdir}/libClipper2.so.* > %{_libdir}/libClipper2Z.so.* Library globs should not be used https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
Thanks for the review! And also thanks for helpfully providing links to the relevant packaging guidelines. I have updated the library to v1.4.0, which made the patches redundant, and I should have addressed all of your points: Spec URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/polyclipping2.spec SRPM URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/polyclipping2-1.4.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2065029 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7532107 to 8480520
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8480520 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2290548-polyclipping2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08480520-polyclipping2/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 think you missed changing `redhat-linux-build` to `%_vpath_builddir`; can you run it directly without the cd also (`%{_vpath_builddir}/ClipperTests`, etc.)?
use %{_vpath_builddir} instead of hardcoding redhat-linux-build Spec URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/polyclipping2.spec SRPM URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/polyclipping2-1.4.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #7) > I think you missed changing `redhat-linux-build` to `%_vpath_builddir`; can > you run it directly without the cd also (`%{_vpath_builddir}/ClipperTests`, > etc.)? I need to cd to `%{_vpath_builddir}` otherwise ClipperTests doesn't find required test data. But I can use `%{_vpath_builddir}` as directory to cd into, instead of hardcoding redhat-linux-build
Created attachment 2065792 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8480520 to 8508393
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8508393 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2290548-polyclipping2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08508393-polyclipping2/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.
LGTM now, approved. 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License". 149 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/polyclipping2/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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 4054 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: polyclipping2-1.4.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm polyclipping2-devel-1.4.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm polyclipping2-1.4.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpeytl89im')] checks: 32, packages: 3 polyclipping2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: polyclipping2-debuginfo-1.4.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpo54meg9t')] 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) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "polyclipping2-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "polyclipping2-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "polyclipping2". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/archive/refs/tags/Clipper2_1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b83f71bb6a338f4f82116089c5ae867dbc43a2d651b5441380970dd966edd959 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b83f71bb6a338f4f82116089c5ae867dbc43a2d651b5441380970dd966edd959 Requires -------- polyclipping2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(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) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) polyclipping2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1()(64bit) polyclipping2(x86-64) Provides -------- polyclipping2: libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1()(64bit) polyclipping2 polyclipping2(x86-64) polyclipping2-devel: cmake(Clipper2) cmake(clipper2) pkgconfig(Clipper2) pkgconfig(Clipper2Z) polyclipping2-devel polyclipping2-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name polyclipping2 --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/polyclipping2
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127864177