Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bgilbert/srpm/gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bgilbert/srpm/gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-2.42.12-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: gdk-pixbuf is an image loading library that can be extended by loadable modules for new image formats. It is used by toolkits such as GTK+ or clutter. This package contains modules for loading ANI, BMP, ICNS, ICO, PNM, QTIF, TGA, XBM, and XPM images. Fedora Account System Username: bgilbert
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7706687 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2295748-gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07706687-gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra/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.
Background: Starting in gdk-pixbuf 2.42.11, loaders for ANI, BMP, ICNS, ICO, PNM, QTIF, TGA, XBM, and XPM images are disabled at build time by default [1]. Accordingly, the gdk-pixbuf2-modules package in F41 no longer includes these loaders, and the package maintainers do not intend to reinstate them [2]. There was some discussion upstream about moving the affected loaders into a separate project [3], but upstream has apparently decided against this. However, gdk-pixbuf has supported some of these formats for nearly 25 years, and several packages require or optionally use the loaders, including Eye of GNOME, GKrellM, the Nautilus thumbnailer, OpenSlide, and XSane. Their withdrawal from Rawhide has caused some of these packages to break; see e.g. [4] and [5]. Several other downstreams - at least Alpine [6], Arch [7], Debian (for now) [8], Homebrew [9], and openSUSE [10] - have addressed this by re-enabling the loaders at build time. For Fedora the straightforward fix is to restore the loaders to gdk-pixbuf2-modules or move them into a gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra subpackage, but the package maintainers do not wish to continue maintaining these loaders. Therefore, as discussed on devel@ [11], this BZ proposes a new source package. It independently builds gdk-pixbuf from source, shipping only those loaders removed from gdk-pixbuf2-modules. gdk-pixbuf's module system anticipates out-of-tree modules, and in fact Fedora ships several [12], so there should be no need for the new package to have a fully-versioned dependency on gdk-pixbuf2. I intend to keep this package up-to-date with future gdk-pixbuf releases. For packages which require the affected loaders (GKrellM, OpenSlide, and XSane) I plan to PR a Requires update, but I'm not planning to do that for packages (e.g. Nautilus) which only optionally use them. [1]: https://discourse.gnome.org/t/change-in-the-gdk-pixbuf-loaders-built-by-default-in-2-42-11/21845 [2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdk-pixbuf2/pull-request/4 [3]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gdk-pixbuf/-/merge_requests/169#note_2092522 [4]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2276464 [5]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2276661 [6]: https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/issues/16078 [7]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/gdk-pixbuf2/-/merge_requests/1 [8]: https://bugs.debian.org/1071271 [9]: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/169833 [10]: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/1223903 [11]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/WXGFAXQAVMIKPU6KPW7ZWY2RQEOY276Y/ [12]: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/search?query=%22pixbuf-loader%22
Can you fill out the review template from comment 1 and paste here?
I can do that if you'd like, but I believe the reviewer normally does it.
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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 558 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/agoode/FedoraReview/2295748-gdk- pixbuf2-modules-extra/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0, /usr/lib64, /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/thumbnailers, /usr/share, /usr/src, /usr/lib, /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share/licenses, /usr [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0, /usr/lib64, /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/thumbnailers, /usr/lib64/gdk- pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0, /usr/share, /usr/src, /usr/share/doc, /usr, /usr/lib [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 25662 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debuginfo-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debugsource-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-2.42.12-1.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/tmpiup23mui')] checks: 32, packages: 4 =========================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 39 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 s ============================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debuginfo-2.42.12-1.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/tmp5m28vi48')] checks: 32, packages: 1 =========================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 26 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 43 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.4 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-ani.so gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-bmp.so gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-icns.so gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-ico.so gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-pnm.so gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-qtif.so gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-tga.so gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-xbm.so gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: /usr/lib64/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-xpm.so Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/gdk-pixbuf/2.42/gdk-pixbuf-2.42.12.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9505b3445b9a7e48ced34760c3bcb73e966df3ac94c95a148cb669ab748e3c7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9505b3445b9a7e48ced34760c3bcb73e966df3ac94c95a148cb669ab748e3c7 Requires -------- gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gdk-pixbuf2(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra: gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra(x86-64) libpixbufloader-ani.so()(64bit) libpixbufloader-bmp.so()(64bit) libpixbufloader-icns.so()(64bit) libpixbufloader-ico.so()(64bit) libpixbufloader-pnm.so()(64bit) libpixbufloader-qtif.so()(64bit) libpixbufloader-tga.so()(64bit) libpixbufloader-xbm.so()(64bit) libpixbufloader-xpm.so()(64bit) gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debuginfo gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debuginfo(x86-64) libpixbufloader-ani.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpixbufloader-bmp.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpixbufloader-icns.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpixbufloader-ico.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpixbufloader-pnm.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpixbufloader-qtif.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpixbufloader-tga.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpixbufloader-xbm.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpixbufloader-xpm.so-2.42.12-1.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debugsource: gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debugsource gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (0d080d6) last change: 2024-04-09 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2295748 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Ruby, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra
FEDORA-2024-2e8a00a638 (gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-2.42.12-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2e8a00a638
FEDORA-2024-2e8a00a638 (gdk-pixbuf2-modules-extra-2.42.12-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.