spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/picasso.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/picasso-2.8.0-1.fc41.src.rpm description: Picasso is a high quality vector graphic rendering library. It has high performance and low footprint. Picasso provides a set of high level 2D graphics API, which can be used to a GUI system, rendering postscript, rendering svg images and so on. It support path, matrix, gradient, pattern, image and truetype font. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8857608 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2357156-picasso/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08857608-picasso/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.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8950893 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2357156-picasso/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08950893-picasso/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= The library versioning is a bit odd. The soname is .1 and the versioned symlink is .2.8.0 (which is the release number), which means the numbers don't match (1 != 2). This is not an error, its just a bit unexpected, and upstream can choose their own convention here. Only the soname matters for the library loader, and the versioned symlink has no technical impact and can be whatever, so this is not a problem. The convention used by libtool, which might not be applicable here is: A major version of 2, a minor version of 8 and an age (= number of previous major versions of the library that are compatible with the current major version) of 1 would normally give a library version of .1.1.8 (= . major-age . age . minor), so that the first number matches the soname. Approved. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). These are loadable modules (plugins) in a subdirectory not in the default library path. [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. 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 238 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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 1081 bytes in 3 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: picasso-2.8.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm picasso-devel-2.8.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm picasso-demos-2.8.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm picasso-doc-2.8.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm picasso-2.8.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmphx5e4p0u')] checks: 32, packages: 5 picasso.src: E: spelling-error ('svg', '%description -l en_US svg -> avg, VG, sag') picasso.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('svg', '%description -l en_US svg -> avg, VG, sag') picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary picasso-clock picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary picasso-flowers picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary picasso-subwaymap picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary picasso-tiger picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-documentation picasso-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation picasso.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: picasso-2.8.0-clean.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 35 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: picasso-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm picasso-demos-debuginfo-2.8.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpscvos_95')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 32 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 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: 6 picasso-demos.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/picasso-subwaymap /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 picasso-demos.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/picasso-tiger /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0 picasso.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('svg', '%description -l en_US svg -> avg, sag, SVN') picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary picasso-clock picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary picasso-flowers picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary picasso-subwaymap picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary picasso-tiger picasso-demos.x86_64: W: no-documentation picasso-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings, 72 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.9 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- picasso: /usr/lib64/picasso/libpsxm_image_gif.so picasso: /usr/lib64/picasso/libpsxm_image_jpeg.so picasso: /usr/lib64/picasso/libpsxm_image_png.so picasso: /usr/lib64/picasso/libpsxm_image_webp.so Requires -------- picasso (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(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) libgif.so.7()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEGTURBO_6.2)(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpicasso2_sw.so.1()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libwebp.so.7()(64bit) open-sans-fonts rtld(GNU_HASH) picasso-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libpicasso2_sw.so.1()(64bit) libpsx_image.so.1()(64bit) picasso(x86-64) picasso-demos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpicasso2_sw.so.1()(64bit) picasso(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) picasso-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- picasso: libpicasso2_sw.so.1()(64bit) libpsx_image.so.1()(64bit) libpsxm_image_gif.so()(64bit) libpsxm_image_jpeg.so()(64bit) libpsxm_image_png.so()(64bit) libpsxm_image_webp.so()(64bit) picasso picasso(x86-64) picasso-devel: picasso-devel picasso-devel(x86-64) picasso-demos: picasso-demos picasso-demos(x86-64) picasso-doc: picasso-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2357156 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Java, Python, PHP, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH