Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutosvg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: PlutoSVG is a compact and efficient SVG rendering library written in C. It is specifically designed for parsing and rendering SVG documents embedded in OpenType fonts, providing an optimal balance between speed and minimal memory usage. It is also suitable for rendering scalable icons. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8772912 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2352883-plutosvg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08772912-plutosvg/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.
> rm -fr %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/*.p Please change that to rm -rv or rm -r. Using -f makes it succeed even if there are no files to delete. > %files samples > %{_bindir}/* What's the reason for the wildcard? Are there too many to list? Does the list change between releases? > -D tests=enabled While the option is there: https://github.com/sammycage/plutosvg/blob/master/meson_options.txt#L2 it doesn't seem to be used anywhere, so there's little point in enabling it. Spec file looks good otherwise.
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #2) > > rm -fr %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/*.p > > Please change that to rm -rv or rm -r. Using -f makes it succeed even if > there are no files to delete. > > > %files samples > > %{_bindir}/* > > What's the reason for the wildcard? > Are there too many to list? > Does the list change between releases? Just a habit for the "rm -f". I changed the installation of the samples by patching the meson.build file, it's something that came out as part of the plutovg review. Now the samples are installed as part of the meson install command, which simplifies the SPEC file and makes sure that the rpath is stripped during install. I've also changed it to a list. > > -D tests=enabled > > While the option is there: > https://github.com/sammycage/plutosvg/blob/master/meson_options.txt#L2 > it doesn't seem to be used anywhere, so there's little point in enabling it. I prefer to left it enabled so I won't forget to re-enable it in the future. I've added a note that is currently a no-op and added the execution of some sample binaries that do not require extra files (as extra from the main plutosvg tarball) as a test.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutosvg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc43.src.rpm - Install binaries by patching meson.build. This simplifies the SPEC file and makes sure the binaries are stripped of the build rpath. - List all sample binaries in the samples subpackage. - Add a note to the %check section that the tests are currently a no-op, and add the execution of a couple of sample apps that do not require extra files as tests.
Created attachment 2080704 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8772912 to 8783600
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8783600 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2352883-plutosvg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08783600-plutosvg/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.
plutovg has been build, these builds in updates-testing can be used for building plutosvg: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=plutovg
@benson_muite do you have time to proceed with the review? Thanks.
Can get to it tomorrow if that is not too late. Otherwise, feel free to unassign me.
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 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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/pluto-svg/review- plutosvg/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. [!]: 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 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 2047 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in plutosvg-samples [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutosvg-devel-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutosvg-samples-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwm9tdfje')] checks: 32, packages: 4 plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary camera2png plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary emoji2png plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary svg2png plutosvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: plutosvg-samples-debuginfo-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutosvg-debuginfo-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8e98k5om')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary camera2png plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary emoji2png plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary svg2png plutosvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 44 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sammycage/plutosvg/archive/v0.0.6/plutosvg-0.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01f8aee511bd587a602a166642a96522cc9522efd1e38c2d00e4fbc0aa22d7a0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01f8aee511bd587a602a166642a96522cc9522efd1e38c2d00e4fbc0aa22d7a0 Requires -------- plutosvg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) plutosvg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libplutosvg.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(freetype2) pkgconfig(plutovg) plutosvg(x86-64) plutovg-devel(x86-64) plutosvg-samples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libplutosvg.so.0()(64bit) libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- plutosvg: libplutosvg.so.0()(64bit) plutosvg plutosvg(x86-64) plutosvg-devel: pkgconfig(plutosvg) plutosvg-devel plutosvg-devel(x86-64) plutosvg-samples: plutosvg-samples plutosvg-samples(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n plutosvg -o=--no-clean Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) There is a conflict $ dnf repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/svg2png Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. lunasvg-0:2.3.9-2.fc41.i686 lunasvg-0:2.3.9-2.fc41.x86_64 lunasvg-0:3.1.0-1.fc41.i686 lunasvg-0:3.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64 mapnik-utils-0:4.0.2-1.fc41.x86_64 perhaps rename the files to plutosvg2png, plutoemoji2png and plutocamera2png, maybe upstream would consider the change as well as many svg library packages have a binary svg2png. b) Is it possible to add a brief explanation above each patch explaining what it does?
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutosvg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc43.src.rpm(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #10) > perhaps rename the files to plutosvg2png, plutoemoji2png and plutocamera2png, Done. I'm not a fan of this, it's just samples and 99% of the users will never install them, I think they should be left as conflicting or there should be a policty to have them in "private" subfolder (ex. /usr/libexec/%{name}). > b) Is it possible to add a brief explanation above each patch explaining > what it does? Done. Thanks.
Let me know if you need any other review done in return. Thanks.
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 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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/pluto-svg/review- plutosvg/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 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 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 2047 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in plutosvg-samples [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutosvg-devel-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutosvg-samples-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpf5u27zg3')] checks: 32, packages: 4 plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plutosvg_camera2png plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plutosvg_emoji2png plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plutosvg_svg2png plutosvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: plutosvg-samples-debuginfo-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutosvg-debuginfo-0.0.6-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgp9sh9a7')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plutosvg_camera2png plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plutosvg_emoji2png plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plutosvg_svg2png plutosvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutosvg-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 44 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sammycage/plutosvg/archive/v0.0.6/plutosvg-0.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01f8aee511bd587a602a166642a96522cc9522efd1e38c2d00e4fbc0aa22d7a0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01f8aee511bd587a602a166642a96522cc9522efd1e38c2d00e4fbc0aa22d7a0 Requires -------- plutosvg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) plutosvg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libplutosvg.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(freetype2) pkgconfig(plutovg) plutosvg(x86-64) plutovg-devel(x86-64) plutosvg-samples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libplutosvg.so.0()(64bit) libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- plutosvg: libplutosvg.so.0()(64bit) plutosvg plutosvg(x86-64) plutosvg-devel: pkgconfig(plutosvg) plutosvg-devel plutosvg-devel(x86-64) plutosvg-samples: plutosvg-samples plutosvg-samples(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n plutosvg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, Python, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130876342 b) In the %check section, please change %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/camera2png %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/svg2png camera.svg camera.png to %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/plutovgcamera2png %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/plutovgsvg2png camera.svg camera.png c) Approved. Please fix (b) before import. d) Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354812 would be appreciated.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #13) > b) In the %check section, please change > %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/camera2png > %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/svg2png camera.svg camera.png > to > %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/plutovgcamera2png > %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/plutovgsvg2png camera.svg camera.png > c) Approved. Please fix (b) before import. This is not correct, the binaries are used from the build directory, and in there they are not renamed yet. In fact the package builds fine. > d) Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354812 would be > appreciated. Sure.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plutosvg
FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc41 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.el10_1 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed
FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc40 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4
FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc42 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c
FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 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-2025-7f846f5bf4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa 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-2025-6a9ac7fefa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc41 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc40 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.el10_1 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc42 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.