Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/VK_hdr_layer.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/VK_hdr_layer-0~git20240723.3b5c384-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Vulkan layer utilizing a small color management / HDR protocol for experimentation. Upstream protocol proposal for color management is here: wp_color_management. Implements the following vulkan extensions, if the protocol is supported by the compositor. * VK_EXT_swapchain_colorspace * VK_EXT_hdr_metadata Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7988773 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2310324-vk_hdr_layer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07988773-VK_hdr_layer/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages 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.
Using different fork: Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/VK_hdr_layer.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/VK_hdr_layer-0~git20240427.e47dc6d-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2045802 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7988773 to 7997607
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7997607 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2310324-vk_hdr_layer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07997607-VK_hdr_layer/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== 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]: 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", "MIT License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/VK_hdr_layer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vulkan/implicit_layer.d, /usr/share/vulkan [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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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 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 2594 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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: VK_hdr_layer-0~git20240427.e47dc6d-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm VK_hdr_layer-debuginfo-0~git20240427.e47dc6d-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm VK_hdr_layer-debugsource-0~git20240427.e47dc6d-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm VK_hdr_layer-0~git20240427.e47dc6d-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/tmpiauq0lcv')] checks: 32, packages: 4 VK_hdr_layer.src: E: spelling-error ('Vulkan', 'Summary(en_US) Vulkan -> Vulcan') VK_hdr_layer.src: E: spelling-error ('Vulkan', '%description -l en_US Vulkan -> Vulcan') VK_hdr_layer.src: E: spelling-error ('wp', '%description -l en_US wp -> WP, w, p') VK_hdr_layer.src: E: spelling-error ('vulkan', '%description -l en_US vulkan -> vulgarian') VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wp', '%description -l en_US wp -> WP, w, p') VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so VK_hdr_layer.src: E: description-line-too-long Vulkan layer utilizing a small color management / HDR protocol for experimentation. VK_hdr_layer.src: E: description-line-too-long Implements the following vulkan extensions, if the protocol is supported by the compositor. VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Vulkan layer utilizing a small color management / HDR protocol for experimentation. VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Implements the following vulkan extensions, if the protocol is supported by the compositor. ======== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 0 warnings, 22 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.3 s ========= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: VK_hdr_layer-debuginfo-0~git20240427.e47dc6d-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/tmpejb9el6o')] 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) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wp', '%description -l en_US wp -> WP, w, p') VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Vulkan layer utilizing a small color management / HDR protocol for experimentation. VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Implements the following vulkan extensions, if the protocol is supported by the compositor. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- VK_hdr_layer: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zamundaaa/VK_hdr_layer/archive/e47dc6da924cd361b0082f5c27fe5e923377bb54/VK_hdr_layer-e47dc6d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1f198c5fe2838986ca3873f94114d7eae7658f31ec73f0bb228369973f50fb9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1f198c5fe2838986ca3873f94114d7eae7658f31ec73f0bb228369973f50fb9 Requires -------- VK_hdr_layer (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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) VK_hdr_layer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): VK_hdr_layer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- VK_hdr_layer: VK_hdr_layer VK_hdr_layer(x86-64) libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so()(64bit) VK_hdr_layer-debuginfo: VK_hdr_layer-debuginfo VK_hdr_layer-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so-0~git20240427.e47dc6d-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) VK_hdr_layer-debugsource: VK_hdr_layer-debugsource VK_hdr_layer-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n VK_hdr_layer-0~git20240427.e47dc6d-1.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, R, fonts, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so libVkLayer_hdr_wsi.so For Vulkan layers, they need to be installed outside of the default linker path. Install into %{_libdir}/%{name}/layer/ per policy https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/blob/master/f/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Unversioned_shared_objects.adoc (the docs aren't generating correctly so I'm referencing the source adoc.) Ensure that the %{_datadir}/vulkan/implicit_layer.d/VkLayer_hdr_wsi.x86_64.json is correct for the new path. Keep multi-arch in mind and ensure the absolute path takes into account %{_libdir}. An example of where this is done: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/monado-vulkan-layers [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Just documenting there are no tests. VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Vulkan layer utilizing a small color management / HDR protocol for experimentation. VK_hdr_layer.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Implements the following vulkan extensions, if the protocol is supported by the compositor. Reformat.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Unversioned_shared_objects/ is the correct policy link. I've got a ticket open to figure out how to link it correctly.
The issues should be addressed now. Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/VK_hdr_layer.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/VK_hdr_layer-0~git20241018.e173f26-1.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8157391 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2310324-vk_hdr_layer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08157391-VK_hdr_layer/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.
APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/VK_hdr_layer
FEDORA-2024-f002cac033 (VK_hdr_layer-0~git20241018.e173f26-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f002cac033
FEDORA-2024-f002cac033 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-f002cac033 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f002cac033 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-ca2b0ff2bf 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-ca2b0ff2bf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ca2b0ff2bf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-f002cac033 (VK_hdr_layer-0~git20241018.e173f26-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-ca2b0ff2bf (VK_hdr_layer-0~git20241018.e173f26-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.