Bug 2315060 - Review Request: capypdf - Fully color-managed PDF generation library
Summary: Review Request: capypdf - Fully color-managed PDF generation library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Davide Cavalca
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/jpakkane/capypdf
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-09-27 02:11 UTC by Neal Gompa
Modified: 2024-10-11 01:31 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-10-10 21:28:50 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
davide: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8082818 to 8085113 (1.16 KB, patch)
2024-09-27 13:45 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8085113 to 8085535 (359 bytes, patch)
2024-09-27 16:26 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Neal Gompa 2024-09-27 02:11:58 UTC
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/capypdf.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/capypdf-0.11.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

Description:
This is a library for generating PDF files. It aims to be very low level.
It does not have its own document model, it merely exposes PDF primitives
directly.

Fedora Account System Username: ngompa

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-09-27 06:20:52 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8082818
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2315060-capypdf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08082818-capypdf/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.

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2024-09-27 13:42:26 UTC
Refreshed the spec and SRPM to drop a subpackage.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2024-09-27 13:45:36 UTC
Created attachment 2049161 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8082818 to 8085113

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2024-09-27 13:45:38 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8085113
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2315060-capypdf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08085113-capypdf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Comment 5 Neal Gompa 2024-09-27 16:15:40 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2024-09-27 16:26:04 UTC
Created attachment 2049164 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8085113 to 8085535

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2024-09-27 16:26:06 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8085535
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2315060-capypdf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08085535-capypdf/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.

Comment 8 Michel Lind 2024-09-29 03:13:33 UTC
This is mostly fine - there are no tests but that's a SHOULD. The big problem is the lack of machine-readable provides for python3-capypdf - python3dist(capypdf), python3.13dist(capypdf)

Any idea if this can be fixed? The guidelines says it can't be manually added

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Machine-readable-provides


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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "Apache License 2.0". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/capypdf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/__pycache__,
     /usr/lib/python3.13
     => false positive, package requires python(abi) = 3.13 which pulls in python3-libs which owns these directories
[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.
[!]: 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 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 1979 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-capypdf
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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: capypdf-0.11.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          capypdf-devel-0.11.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          python3-capypdf-0.11.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          capypdf-debuginfo-0.11.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          capypdf-debugsource-0.11.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          capypdf-0.11.0-1.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/tmpquurm4ut')]
checks: 32, packages: 6

capypdf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python3-capypdf.noarch: W: no-documentation
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 33 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: capypdf-debuginfo-0.11.0-1.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/tmpxx3c425z')]
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 "python3-capypdf".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "capypdf".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "capypdf-debuginfo".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "capypdf-devel".
============================ 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: 5

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "capypdf-debugsource".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jpakkane/capypdf/releases/download/0.11.0/capypdf-0.11.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 427a0a8e04288a62c11c2048c5d0f5cb19fb331dde65a39c9909d5c2d652e0ad
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 427a0a8e04288a62c11c2048c5d0f5cb19fb331dde65a39c9909d5c2d652e0ad


Requires
--------
capypdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libfreetype.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)
    libjpeg.so.62()(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEGTURBO_6.2)(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit)
    liblcms2.so.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtiff.so.6()(64bit)
    libtiff.so.6(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

capypdf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    capypdf(x86-64)
    libcapypdf.so.0()(64bit)

python3-capypdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    capypdf
    python(abi)

capypdf-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

capypdf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
capypdf:
    capypdf
    capypdf(x86-64)
    libcapypdf.so.0()(64bit)

capypdf-devel:
    capypdf-devel
    capypdf-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(capypdf)

python3-capypdf:
    python-capypdf
    python3-capypdf
    python3.13-capypdf

capypdf-debuginfo:
    capypdf-debuginfo
    capypdf-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libcapypdf.so.0.11.0-0.11.0-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

capypdf-debugsource:
    capypdf-debugsource
    capypdf-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 capypdf --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 9 Neal Gompa 2024-09-29 05:11:35 UTC
(In reply to Michel Lind from comment #8)
> This is mostly fine - there are no tests but that's a SHOULD. The big
> problem is the lack of machine-readable provides for python3-capypdf -
> python3dist(capypdf), python3.13dist(capypdf)
> 
> Any idea if this can be fixed? The guidelines says it can't be manually added
> 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Machine-
> readable-provides
> 

Theoretically yes, but the problem is capypdf's pyproject build is broken.

I patched out the custom meson-python thing for Windows, but the pyproject_install macro fails because the metadata is installed archfully for a noarch python subpackage and the metadata is installed to the wrong place and I'm not sure how to fix it.

Comment 10 Davide Cavalca 2024-10-02 17:53:23 UTC
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #9)
> Theoretically yes, but the problem is capypdf's pyproject build is broken.
> 
> I patched out the custom meson-python thing for Windows, but the
> pyproject_install macro fails because the metadata is installed archfully
> for a noarch python subpackage and the metadata is installed to the wrong
> place and I'm not sure how to fix it.

Package approved, but please file a bug upstream for this and link it in the spec.

Comment 11 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-10-09 18:44:50 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/capypdf

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2024-10-09 21:42:09 UTC
FEDORA-2024-dfab22d469 (capypdf-0.11.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dfab22d469

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2024-10-10 02:55:40 UTC
FEDORA-2024-2af46231b5 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-2024-2af46231b5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2af46231b5

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2024-10-10 03:17:54 UTC
FEDORA-2024-dfab22d469 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-dfab22d469 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dfab22d469

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2024-10-10 21:28:50 UTC
FEDORA-2024-2af46231b5 (capypdf-0.11.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2024-10-11 01:31:37 UTC
FEDORA-2024-dfab22d469 (capypdf-0.11.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.