Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/aribb24.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/aribb24-1.0.3-1.20160216git5e9be27.fc40.src.rpm Description: A library for ARIB STD-B24, decoding JIS 8 bit characters and parsing MPEG-TS stream. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7939920 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2307694-aribb24/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07939920-aribb24/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Not a valid SPDX expression 'LGPL-3.0'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/aribb24.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/aribb24-1.0.3-2.20160216git5e9be27.fc40.src.rpm Fixed SPDX license identifier and build requirements.
Created attachment 2045031 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7939920 to 7953282
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7953282 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2307694-aribb24/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07953282-aribb24/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.
First off, this has not been updated upstream in years; it is really still useful? Adding the git snapshot information to Release is deprecated; current guidelines state these should be in Version instead: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Which would look something like: Version: 1.0.3%{!?tag:^%{date}git%{shortcommit0}} Release: 2%{?dist} BTW, why is release 2 and not 1? Drop the Requires: pkg-config from -devel. In %files devel, change %{_includedir}/%{name}/*.h to just %{_includedir}/%{name}/ so that the directory is also owned.
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #5) > First off, this has not been updated upstream in years; it is really still > useful? It has been the main support in ffmpeg (and still is) for anything ARIB STD-B24. I think it will be eventually replaced completely by libaribcaption, but I can't tell. > Adding the git snapshot information to Release is deprecated; current > guidelines state these should be in Version instead: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > #_snapshots > > Which would look something like: > > Version: 1.0.3%{!?tag:^%{date}git%{shortcommit0}} > Release: 2%{?dist} Doh, I was not aware it changed. I guess I will update all packages that I maintain with snapshots in the name. > BTW, why is release 2 and not 1? Leftover I guess, I will reuse 1. > Drop the Requires: pkg-config from -devel. > > In %files devel, change %{_includedir}/%{name}/*.h to just > %{_includedir}/%{name}/ so that the directory is also owned. Done.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/aribb24.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/aribb24-1.0.3.20160216git5e9be27-3.fc40.src.rpm Updated, sorry for the delay. I've left revision 3 as it will update the package from my repository and remove it, and it already contains a bit of history.
Version is still incorrect per the guidelines; please review my comment above and the link therein. Following those will make the version higher than your previous build in your repo, so Release should still be 1. Again, drop the Requires: pkg-config from -devel. Add %doc README.md to %files.
Created attachment 2046435 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7953282 to 8010403
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8010403 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2307694-aribb24/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08010403-aribb24/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.
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #8) > Version is still incorrect per the guidelines; please review my comment > above and the link therein. Argh, copy/paste error. Following those will make the version higher > than your previous build in your repo, so Release should still be 1. Ok, I'll move it to 1, but it does not really matter if we start at 3 with some history or 1. > Again, drop the Requires: pkg-config from -devel. > Add %doc README.md to %files. Fixed. Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/aribb24.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/aribb24-1.0.3%5e20160216git5e9be27-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2046501 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8010403 to 8011089
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8011089 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2307694-aribb24/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08011089-aribb24/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++: [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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/aribb24/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]: 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 103 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). [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]: 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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm aribb24-devel-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm aribb24-debuginfo-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm aribb24-debugsource-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc42.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/tmpsj0hpesb')] checks: 32, packages: 5 aribb24-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation aribb24.spec:4: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 26 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: aribb24-debuginfo-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc42.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/tmp7dip4avs')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "aribb24". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "aribb24-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "aribb24-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "aribb24-devel". 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: 4 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nkoriyama/aribb24/archive/5e9be272f96e00f15a2f3c5f8ba7e124862aec38.tar.gz#/aribb24-5e9be27.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 651e88af3c8189d4faed538bee3affde360eb4698a70505765fc7e5653f5eb23 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 651e88af3c8189d4faed538bee3affde360eb4698a70505765fc7e5653f5eb23 Requires -------- aribb24 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) aribb24-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config aribb24(x86-64) libaribb24.so.0()(64bit) aribb24-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aribb24-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- aribb24: aribb24 aribb24(x86-64) libaribb24.so.0()(64bit) aribb24-devel: aribb24-devel aribb24-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(aribb24) aribb24-debuginfo: aribb24-debuginfo aribb24-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libaribb24.so.0.0.0-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) aribb24-debugsource: aribb24-debugsource aribb24-debugsource(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 aribb24 --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, R, Perl, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH PACKAGE APPROVED.
FEDORA-2024-236f721f67 (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-236f721f67
FEDORA-2024-828d07494d (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-828d07494d
FEDORA-2024-c031498b48 (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c031498b48
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-f742517437 (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-f742517437
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-fbf26e4105 (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-fbf26e4105
FEDORA-2024-236f721f67 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-236f721f67 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-236f721f67 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-828d07494d 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-2024-828d07494d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-828d07494d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-f742517437 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-f742517437 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-fbf26e4105 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-fbf26e4105 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-c031498b48 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-c031498b48 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c031498b48 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-236f721f67 (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-f742517437 (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-fbf26e4105 (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-828d07494d (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-c031498b48 (aribb24-1.0.3^20160216git5e9be27-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.