Spec URL: https://github.com/solomoncyj/svt-av1-psy/releases/download/v2.2.1-A/svt-av1-psy.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/solomoncyj/svt-av1-psy/releases/download/v2.2.1-A/svt-av1-psy-2.2.1.A-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: SVT-AV1 with perceptual enhancements optimal AV1 encoding Fedora Account System Username: solomoncyj Reproducible: Couldn't Reproduce
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8105376 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316282-svt-av1-psy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08105376-svt-av1-psy/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-3-Clause-Clear AND BSD-2-Clause'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Documentation size is 4876478 bytes in 232 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation 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.
- Please add `-DUSE_EXTERNAL_CPUINFO=ON` and delete `third_party/cpuinfo` - Delete all `third_party` actually. We need to go over those files to make sure there are no unpackageable files that we need to sanitize first - Enable the unit tests (`-DBUILD_TESTING=ON`) - The `HAVE_ARM_PLATFORM` section will be very tricky to handle for `aarch64` builders (all of the `ENABLE_NEON` and similar options). I don't have the expertise there, maybe you can ping this in devel to get a second pair of eyes. - I think `EXCLUDE_HASH` (and by extension `REPRODUCIBLE_BUILDS`) should be `ON` - Unconditional `add_subdirectory(third_party/fastfeat)` is problematic :(. It's a dead project though, so maybe you can just use `Provides: bundled(fastfeat)` in this case. - I need to go through the build 3-4 more times, there are so many more weird stuff to review in there. (Oh god I hate the build system for this project as well)
Regarding the license issue, see: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/383 https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/data/LicenseRef-BSD-3-Clause-Clear-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0.toml?ref_type=heads We might want to change this to get rid of the `LicenseRef-`, but maybe it's better not to.
Removing the FE-Legal block.
The license issue is with regards to the patents, not the BSD-3-Clause-Clear tag. Are the patents used there acceptable?
(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #5) > The license issue is with regards to the patents, not the BSD-3-Clause-Clear > tag. Are the patents used there acceptable? The reason why BSD-3-Clause-Clear (better known to some of us as ClearBSD) is not allowed (by default) in Fedora is that it excludes the grant of a patent license. In this case, what we have is a supplementing of that license with a patent license in the PATENTS.md file. The previous conclusion was basically that the combination of the copyright license and the patent license was acceptable as an open source license. If you think there is a patent issue that is not satisfactorily covered under the license in the PATENTS file -- for example (this is completely hypothetical, to be clear) you have specific reason to believe that the package infringes patent X and you have specific reason to believe the license in the PATENTS file doesn't extend to patent X -- we can look into that.
(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #2) > - Please add `-DUSE_EXTERNAL_CPUINFO=ON` and delete `third_party/cpuinfo` > - Delete all `third_party` actually. We need to go over those files to make > sure there are no unpackageable files that we need to sanitize first > - Enable the unit tests (`-DBUILD_TESTING=ON`) > - The `HAVE_ARM_PLATFORM` section will be very tricky to handle for > `aarch64` builders (all of the `ENABLE_NEON` and similar options). I don't > have the expertise there, maybe you can ping this in devel to get a second > pair of eyes. > - I think `EXCLUDE_HASH` (and by extension `REPRODUCIBLE_BUILDS`) should be > `ON` > - Unconditional `add_subdirectory(third_party/fastfeat)` is problematic :(. > It's a dead project though, so maybe you can just use `Provides: > bundled(fastfeat)` in this case. > - I need to go through the build 3-4 more times, there are so many more > weird stuff to review in there. > > (Oh god I hate the build system for this project as well) request 2 blocks building. requesting legal team to take a look
Similar to [1] it seems there are more complicated license breakdowns. Hopefully licensecheck can help navigate through them. Breakdown of the `third_party` stuff: - `aom/inc/aom`: Used only in tests. Should be available in Fedora through `aom` [2]. Delete if running the tests proves too hard, otherwise indicate in the SourceLicense breakdown or comments. - `aom_dsp`: Same as above, but upstream does not seem to expose it. - `cpuinfo`: Available in fedora build supports linking to it. Please delete it and use `-DUSE_EXTERNAL_CPUINFO=ON`. - `fastfeat`: Dead project and there seems to be an alternative code-generated version [3]. For now though, just `Provides: bundled()` it and include it's license. - `googletest`: Available in Fedora. Needs some patching to remove the `third_party/googletest` references and replace them with `find_package(GTest)`, `target_link_libraries(GTest::gtest GTest::gtest_main)` and a few other stuff. Alternatively open an issue and ask them to support linking against system `gtest` (or better have `FetchContent(FIND_PACKAGE_ARGS)` support). - `safestringlib`: Available upstream project [4] but not packaged to Fedora. Please open an issue in either project to request supporting that. In any case the license breakdown should indicate the `third_party` stuff, either inside the `License` field or `SourceLicense` field (for the case of `googletest` which is not packaged), and appropriate `Provides: bundled()` should be added. [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/svt-av1/blob/rawhide/f/svt-av1.spec [2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aom [3]: https://github.com/edrosten/fast-C-src/issues/3 [4]: https://github.com/intel/safestringlib
i will be dropping the tests. when i did it, the tests timed out and failed, stopping the builds. case in point : https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/build/8111629/
This would mean removing gtest, gmock, aom, libaom-devel from the project
For this packages, let's just go with `Provides: bundled()` since de-bundeling the rest is rather tricky and the issues should also be coordinated with `svt-av1` upstream. I.e. keep `safestringlib` as is, disable tests similar to `svt-av1`, but still link to the external `cpuinfo` since they seem to already support it. After maybe 1-2 rounds of review, I'll ask Neal Gompa to also take a look at it or bounce it around a bit since the package is almost identical with `svt-av1` and there would be some coordination needed between those, and to check if they are compatible with one another.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/fedora-40-x86_64/08136961-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/fedora-40-x86_64/08136961-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy-2.2.1.B-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: SVT-AV1 with perceptual enhancements optimal AV1 encoding Fedora Account System Username: solomoncyj
So far only small changes remain: - `BSD-3-Clause-Clear` -> `LicenseRef-BSD-3-Clause-Clear-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0` - See the license breakdown in upstream [1], those licenses should also be included - `valgrind-devel` is a development tool like a linter, it should not be used - The `ENABLE_AVX512` option is actually wrongly defined in the CMakeLists.txt, but also supporting a subset of architectures is more complicated, I would need some guidance on this subject as well on how to review this. - For now move `SVT_AV1_PGO` to a TODO? The implication of it seem quite complicated, and maybe it would be good to investigate what it does and how much of an impact it has - Despite upstream documentation, `BUILD_DEC` is not really used anywhere, can remove it - I would recommend adding a few TODOs on things that seem interesting to investigate like: `ENABLE_AVX512`, `SVT_AV1_PGO`, `REPRODUCIBLE_BUILDS` + `EXCLUDE_HASH` (you can find some of them by running `ccmake -B build`, but beware it is not always comprehensive) - Use a `bcond_check` and wrap the `%check` section to ignore it for now, and comment about the failing tests that need to be investigated - Does `svt-av1`/`svt-av1-psy` work without decoder parts? Maybe some additional `Provides` would be in order? Need someone more familiar with the whole project to comment on this part [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/svt-av1/blob/rawhide/f/svt-av1.spec#_12-19
they do work without decoders, as dav1d is the preffered decoder nowadays
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/fedora-39-x86_64/08145287-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/fedora-39-x86_64/08145287-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy-2.2.1.B-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: SVT-AV1 with perceptual enhancements optimal AV1 encoding Fedora Account System Username: solomoncyj
Created attachment 2052224 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8105376 to 8145377
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8145377 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316282-svt-av1-psy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08145377-svt-av1-psy/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Documentation size is 4876987 bytes in 232 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation 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.
I went through the `Source` folder for each file, although `licensecheck` also helped with the breakdown: - `Source/API/*`, `Source/App/*`, `Source/Lib/**` except the ones below: LicenseRef-BSD-2-Clause-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0 - `Source/API/EbSvtAv1Enc.h`, `Source/App/app_config.c`, `Source/App/app_output_ivf.c`, `Source/App/app_output_ivf.h`, `Source/Lib/ASM_AVX2/mc.h`, `Source/Lib/Codec/coding_loop.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/enc_cdef.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/enc_dec_process.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/full_loop.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/initial_rc_process.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/inter_prediction.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/mode_decision.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/pass2_strategy.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/pd_process.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/pic_analysis_process.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/product_coding_loop.c`, `Source/Lib/Codec/temporal_filtering.c`, `Source/Lib/Globals/enc_handle.c`, `Source/Lib/Globals/enc_settings.c`, `Source/Lib/Globals/metadata_handle.h`: LicenseRef-BSD-3-Clause-Clear-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0 - `Source/Lib/ASM_AVX2/dav1d_x86inc.asm`, `Source/Lib/ASM_SSE2/x86inc.asm`: ISC - `Source/Lib/ASM_AVX2/itx*`, `Source/Lib/ASM_AVX2/mc*.asm`, `Source/Lib/ASM_NEON/*.S`, `Source/Lib/ASM_NEON/itx_lbd_neon.h`: BSD-2-Clause - `Source/Lib/Codec/vector.*`: MIT - `third_party/safestringlib`: MIT - `third_party/fastfeat`: BSD-3-Clause Maybe you can write the comment as main library is a tangled mixture of `LicenseRef-BSD-2-Clause-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0` and `LicenseRef-BSD-3-Clause-Clear-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0` in order to avoid the long breakdown of the latter. The `License` section should therefore be: `LicenseRef-BSD-2-Clause-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0 AND LicenseRef-BSD-3-Clause-Clear-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0 AND ISC AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT` (maybe format it with `%{shrink:` to make it human readable) Other than that all looks fine and I will ping Neal after that for second opinion and to see if we can get you sponsored.
Oh, I missed a few stuff: - `Provides: bundled` part, get rid of the quotation marks " - The review is complaining about the `Docs` being too big. You could split it and put in a `docs` sub project. `svt-av1` is putting it in the `devel-docs` for some reason, but reading the contents it seems there are some config file documentation in there also - There are conflicting auto-generated `Provides: pkgconfig(SvtAv1Enc)` in `svt-av1-psy-devel`. Not sure what are the procedures to handle this
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/build/8150598/
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/build/8154804/
LGTM, just make the SPEC and SRPM URL comment so that others can more easily run `fedora-review` on it. After that I will try to needinfo someone who is more familiar with `svt-av1`
(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #19) > - There are conflicting auto-generated `Provides: pkgconfig(SvtAv1Enc)` in > `svt-av1-psy-devel`. Not sure what are the procedures to handle this This should definitely disappear unless the plan is to make this the replacement of vanilla svt-av1. Maybe change the code to provide pkgconfig(SvtAv1Enc-psy)?
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #23) > (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #19) > > - There are conflicting auto-generated `Provides: pkgconfig(SvtAv1Enc)` in > > `svt-av1-psy-devel`. Not sure what are the procedures to handle this > > This should definitely disappear unless the plan is to make this the > replacement of vanilla svt-av1. Maybe change the code to provide > pkgconfig(SvtAv1Enc-psy)? this can be use as a drop in for vanilla svt-av1. it id the same just without the svtAv1Dec
The libraries may be a drop in replacement, but the provides issue is a bit different. Consider if there is a package `foo.spec` which has the line ``` BuildRequires: pkgconfig(SvtAv1Enc) ``` Then which project would it be built against. Similarly in that `foo.spec` you do not specify a `Requires` because that is automatically detected from checking the linkages of the binary and libraries, but then which package will it automatically populate the `Requires` field with? I know there are examples with binary packages like different versions of `mariadb` and there was a talk on that design in the last devconf.cz, but for the library case and something that will be injected in `BuildRequires` I don't know what are the implications. I do not have enough experience with this issue so we should get more feedback on this issue and what needs to be done.
https://github.com/gianni-rosato/svt-av1-psy/issues/85#event-14818727310 only problem with renaming: it will break the "drop in" effect. how about removing the pkgconf: for the psy and have the users explicitly use the devel package?
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/fedora-41-aarch64/08229981-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/SVT-AV1-PSY/fedora-41-aarch64/08229981-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy-2.3.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
programs will be built aginst the og lib, how ever users can swap the libary at runtime to use this lib
Created attachment 2056454 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8145377 to 8230681
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8230681 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316282-svt-av1-psy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08230681-svt-av1-psy/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Documentation size is 4764605 bytes in 232 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation 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.
The only comment I have left is that the `Conflicts` should be with `svt-av1-libs`. But at this point the only issue is how to make it compatible with `svt-av1` since they have the same SONAME/SOVERSION libraries. I don't have experience with this so I hope someone else can chime in on this issue. Pinging Neal and Robert as maintainers for `svt-av1` if they can help here.
https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/end-of-psy/
apprently the project is being mantained by other people now
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/psy/fedora-41-x86_64/08697888-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/psy/fedora-41-x86_64/08697888-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy-2.3.0.B-1.20250225gitv2.3.0.b.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2077737 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8230681 to 8697904
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8697904 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316282-svt-av1-psy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08697904-svt-av1-psy/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Documentation size is 4765831 bytes in 232 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation 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.
abidiff --no-harmful --redundant --verbose /home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0 /home/solomoncyj/Downloads/review-svt-av1-psy/rpms-unpacked/svt-av1-psy-2.3.0.B-1.20250225gitv2.3.0.b.fc42.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0 building die -> parent maps ... DONE@/home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0:0s6ms DWARF Reader: building the libabigail internal representation ... DWARF Reader: building the libabigail internal representation DONE for corpus /home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0 in: 0s258ms DWARF Reader: Number of aggregate types compared: 319 Number of canonical types propagated: 149 Number of cancelled propagated canonical types:0 Number of suppressed functions: 11782 Number of allowed functions: 3200 Total number of fns in the corpus: 23 Total number of variables in the corpus: 0 DWARF Reader: resolving declaration only classes ... DONE@/home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0 in :0s resolving declaration only enums ... DONE@/home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0:0s DWARF Reader: fixing up functions with linkage name but no advertised underlying symbols ....0 functions to fixup, potentially DONE@/home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0 in :0s DWARF Reader: perform late type canonicalizing ... DWARF Reader is going to canonicalize 16169 types from corpus /home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0 sorting types before canonicalization ... sorted types for c14n in: 0s81ms hashing types before c14n ... hashed types in: 0s164ms Canonicalizing types ... Canonicalizing of types DONE in: 0s41ms DWARF Reader finished types sorting, hashing & canonicalizing in: 0s287ms DWARF Reader: late type canonicalizing DONE for /home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0 in :0s287ms DWARF Reader: sort functions and variables ... DONE@/home/solomoncyj/Downloads/svt-av1-libs-2.3.0-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/lib64/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2.3.0:0s Compute diff ... diff computed!:0s Computing net changes ... Applying suppressions ... suppressions applied!:0s Marking leaf nodes ... leaf nodes marked!:0s Applying filters and computing diff stats ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:applying filters to 0 changed fns ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:filters to changed fn applied!:0s in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:applying filters to 0 changed vars ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:filters to changed vars applied!:0s in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:applying filters to unreachable types ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:filters to unreachable types applied!:0s in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:categorizing redundant changed sub nodes ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:redundant changed sub nodes categorized!:0s in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:count changed fns ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:changed fn counted!:0s in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:count changed vars ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:changed vars counted!:0s in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:count leaf changed types ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:changed leaf types counted!:0s in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:count leaf changed artefacts ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:changed leaf artefacts counted!:0s in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:count unreachable types ... in apply_filters_and_compute_diff_stats:unreachable types counted!:0s Filters applied and diff stats computed!: 0s net changes computed!: 0s Computing incompatible changes ... Computing changes ... changes computed!: 0s Computing report ... Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added function Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable Function symbols changes summary: 0 Removed, 1 Added function symbol not referenced by debug info Variable symbols changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Added variable symbol not referenced by debug info 1 Added function symbol not referenced by debug info: [A] svt_psy_get_version Report computed!:0s
Ok my idea, since I have worked on it to, was to use this package as a drop-in replacement, since this is the same library. So provides exactly the same as the original one, that the user could dnf swap it. If you put the lib inside the main package it will conflict with the original libs package too and the swap won't be easy. What I would change: %bcond_with check -> %bcond check 1 to have consistent syntax. # cpuinfo is only available for %%{x86_64} %%{arm64} on Fedora -> # cpuinfo and libdovi are only availables for %%{x86_64} %%{arm64} on Fedora %if %{with libdovi} BuildRequires: libdovi-devel %endif -> %if %{with libdovi} BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dovi) %endif -> Prefer to use pkgconfig() and cmake() in your spec Something is wrong here: %if %{with unbundled_cpuinfo} BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcpuinfo) Provides: bundled(cpuinfo) = 0^20201129gita7e1076-1 %endif if you unbundle, you should not have Provides: bundled(cpuinfo) at the same time: %if %{with unbundled_cpuinfo} BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcpuinfo) %endif and %if %{without unbundled_cpuinfo} Provides: bundled(cpuinfo) = 0^20201129gita7e1076-1 %endif Regarding : Version: 2.3.0.B -> Version: 2.3.0~B with %global version_with_dash %(echo %{version} | tr '~' '-') and Source: %url/archive/v%{version_with_dash}/SVT-AV1-%{version_with_dash}.tar.gz But if you use forge : %global tag v%(echo %{version} | tr '~' '-') Regarding the conflicts, the guidelines are https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_library_name_conflicts which suggests: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/EnvironmentModules/ and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/ But Ihave not much experience with this.
This is my current version if you want inspiration: %bcond check 1 # cpuinfo and libdovi is only available for %%{x86_64} %%{arm64} on Fedora %ifarch %{x86_64} %{arm64} %bcond unbundled_cpuinfo 1 %bcond libdovi 1 %endif %global version_with_dash %(echo %{version} | tr '~' '-') %global _description %{expand: SVT-AV1-PSY is the Scalable Video Technology for AV1 (SVT-AV1 Encoder and Decoder) with perceptual enhancements for psychovisually optimal AV1 encoding. The goal is to create the best encoding implementation for perceptual quality with AV1.} Name: svt-av1-psy Version: 2.3.0~B Release: %autorelease Summary: SVT-AV1 with perceptual enhancements for optimal AV1 encoding # Main library: BSD-3-Clause-Clear and AOMPL # https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/383 # Source/Lib/Common/Codec/EbHmCode.c: BSD # Source/App/EncApp/EbAppString.* # Source/Lib/Common/Codec/EbString.* # Source/Lib/Encoder/Codec/vector.*: MIT # Source/Lib/Common/ASM_SSE2/x86inc.asm: ISC # Source/App/DecApp/EbMD5Utility.*: PublicDomain # third_party/fastfeat : BSD-3-Clause # third_party/safestringlib : MIT License: LicenseRef-BSD-3-Clause-Clear-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0 AND MIT AND ISC AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain URL: https://github.com/psy-ex/svt-av1-psy Source: %url/archive/v%{version_with_dash}/SVT-AV1-%{version_with_dash}.tar.gz BuildRequires: cmake >= 3.16 BuildRequires: gcc >= 5.4.0 BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 5.4.0 BuildRequires: help2man BuildRequires: nasm >= 2.14 BuildRequires: ninja-build %if %{with libdovi} BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dovi) %endif %if %{with unbundled_cpuinfo} BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcpuinfo) %endif Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} %description %_description %package libs Summary: SVT-AV1-PSY libraries %if ! %{with gst_plugin} Obsoletes: gstreamer1-%{name} < %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} %endif %if %{without unbundled_cpuinfo} Provides: bundled(cpuinfo) = 0^20201129gita7e1076-1 %endif Provides: bundled(fastfeat) = 0^20191113git391d5e9-1 Provides: bundled(safestringlib) = 1.0.0-1 %description libs %_description This package contains SVT-AV1-PSY libraries. %package devel Summary: Development files for SVT-AV1-PSY Requires: %{name}-libs = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} Recommends: %{name}-devel-docs = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} %description devel %_description. This package contains the development files for SVT-AV1-PSY. %package devel-docs Summary: Development documentation for SVT-AV1-PSY BuildArch: noarch %description devel-docs %_description. This package contains the documentation for development of SVT-AV1-PSY. %prep %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version_with_dash} # Mitigate name collisions mv third_party/fastfeat/LICENSE LICENSE.fastfeat mv third_party/safestringlib/LICENSE LICENSE.safestringlib # Sanitize third_party %if %{with unbundled_cpuinfo} rm -rfv third_party/cpuinfo %endif rm -rfv third_party/aom* rm -rfv third_party/googletest %build %cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR=%{_libdir} \ %if %{with unbundled_cpuinfo} -DUSE_EXTERNAL_CPUINFO=ON \ %else -DUSE_EXTERNAL_CPUINFO=OFF \ %endif %if %{with libdovi} -DLIBDOVI_FOUND=1 \ %endif -DSVT_AV1_LTO=ON \ -DSVT_AV1_PGO=ON \ -G Ninja \ %cmake_build %install %cmake_install rm -rfv %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.{a,la} install -dm0755 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1 export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:%{buildroot}%{_libdir} help2man -N --help-option=--help --no-discard-stderr --version-string=%{version} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/SvtAv1EncApp > %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/SvtAv1EncApp.1 %if %{with check} %check %ctest %endif %files %{_bindir}/SvtAv1EncApp %{_mandir}/man1/SvtAv1EncApp.1* %files libs %license LICENSE.md PATENTS.md LICENSE.fastfeat LICENSE.safestringlib %doc CHANGELOG.md CONTRIBUTING.md README.md %{_libdir}/libSvtAv1Enc.so.2* %files devel %{_includedir}/svt-av1 %{_libdir}/libSvtAv1Enc.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/SvtAv1Enc.pc %files devel-docs %license LICENSE.md PATENTS.md LICENSE.fastfeat LICENSE.safestringlib %doc Docs %changelog %autochangelog
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/psy/fedora-41-x86_64/08718505-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/psy/fedora-41-x86_64/08718505-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy-2.3.0~B-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2078643 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8697904 to 8718523
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8718523 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316282-svt-av1-psy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08718523-svt-av1-psy/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Documentation size is 4767205 bytes in 233 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation 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.
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/psy/fedora-40-aarch64/08718550-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/psy/fedora-40-aarch64/08718550-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy-2.3.0~B-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2078644 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8718523 to 8718608
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8718608 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316282-svt-av1-psy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08718608-svt-av1-psy/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Documentation size is 4767205 bytes in 233 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation 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.
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/psy/fedora-41-x86_64/08803538-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy.spec.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/solomoncyj/psy/fedora-41-x86_64/08803538-svt-av1-psy/svt-av1-psy-2.3.0~B-1.fc41.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8811844 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316282-svt-av1-psy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08811844-svt-av1-psy/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - svt-av1-psy.spec.spec should be svt-av1-psy.spec Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming - Documentation size is 4767205 bytes in 233 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation 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.
Let's get back on this as I need it and I accidentally wiped by review folder Ok gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free needs to be fixed to use pkgconfig(SvtAv1Enc), otherwise it is failing when we swap the package. The whole thing would benefit to use pkgconfig. The SPEC looks good, it is working locally so far. It builds on Mock. Now we have a second problem. The assumption was svt-av1 and svt-av1-psy have the same soname. Now we have official svt-av1 at SONAME 3 and SVT-AV1-PSY at SONAME 2. Considering SVT-AV1-PSY does not have a lot of (wo|man)power, we will have a problem to build it and swap it if the main soname is bigger than the one by svt-av1-psy. It also means each time we soname bump the main package, we will break the psy package and break the upgrade path.
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 40 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 40 on 2025-05-13. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '40'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 40 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
Fedora Linux 40 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2025-05-13. Fedora Linux 40 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see the version field. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an active release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.