Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09364677-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09364677-manifold/manifold-3.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Manifold provides robust operations on watertight triangle meshes with guaranteed manifold output. Features include parallelized algorithms, support for arbitrary vertex attributes, and material mapping for rendering applications. Fedora Account System Username: luya
This package has dependency currently unavailable in the repository. See Depends On.
Updated release Spec url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09382893-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09382893-manifold/manifold-3.2.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9382965 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386079-manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09382965-manifold/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 [ ] = 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "zlib License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 131 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19128 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: 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: manifold-3.2.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm manifold-devel-3.2.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm manifold-3.2.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmpy6hjiehi')] checks: 32, packages: 3 manifold.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: manifold-debuginfo-3.2.1-1.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-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/tmpw6879qz9')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 manifold.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 33 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elalish/manifold/archive/v3.2.1/manifold-3.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c2fddb0f4b2289caff660b29677883f0324415a9901f8f2aed4c83851f994c13 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c2fddb0f4b2289caff660b29677883f0324415a9901f8f2aed4c83851f994c13 Requires -------- manifold (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libassimp.so.5()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) manifold-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libmanifoldc.so.3()(64bit) manifold(x86-64) Provides -------- manifold: libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libmanifoldc.so.3()(64bit) manifold manifold(x86-64) manifold-devel: cmake(manifold) manifold-devel manifold-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(manifold) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2386079 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, Perl, fonts, Python, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Python package from PyPI also contains manifold3d-3.2.1.dist-info should this also be in the python package? b) svd.h is under MIT license https://github.com/elalish/manifold/blob/master/src/svd.h c) Maybe good to test the python bindings: https://github.com/elalish/manifold/blob/master/.github/workflows/manifold.yml#L66
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > > Comments: > a) Python package from PyPI also contains > manifold3d-3.2.1.dist-info > should this also be in the python package? Possibly but I'm unsure how to add that source file as the guideline (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_empty_spec_file) is unclear. I renamed the subpackage as python3-manifold3d. > b) svd.h is under MIT license > https://github.com/elalish/manifold/blob/master/src/svd.h LICENSE line is updated in addition of Zlib according to licensecheck.txt. > c) Maybe good to test the python bindings: > https://github.com/elalish/manifold/blob/master/.github/workflows/manifold. > yml#L66 Unsure how to properly implement into %check as %pytest failed Updated SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09393314-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09393314-manifold/manifold-3.2.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2103135 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9382965 to 9393520
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9393520 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386079-manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09393520-manifold/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.
Comments: a) Thanks for the updates. b) Please use ExcludeArch: i686 rather than listing architectures to be included. c) An example with pytest and documentation is at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/manifold/build/9413161/ This builds the package twice as the Python package build is a little different than the regular build. Perhaps another way can be found to build the Python package metadata, for example by adding an option to the CMakeLists.txt files to build a Python wheel. d) Maybe patches can be applied to clipper2 to enable shared versions of clipper2utils to be built: https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/blob/main/CPP/CMakeLists.txt#L135 https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/blob/main/CPP/CMakeLists.txt#L142 This is not blocking, but would be nice if possible at some point in future. e) Consider reporting S390x test failure upstream: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136040145
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #8) > b) Please use > > ExcludeArch: i686 > > rather than listing architectures to be included. Done. That review line "Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag." was ambiguous though. > > c) An example with pytest and documentation is at: > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/manifold/build/9413161/ > > This builds the package twice as the Python package build is a little > different than the regular > build. Perhaps another way can be found to build the Python package > metadata, for example by > adding an option to the CMakeLists.txt files to build a Python wheel. I am unsure how to do with CMakeList due to limited option for Python. The example of pytest seems working as intended. > > d) Maybe patches can be applied to clipper2 to enable shared versions of > clipper2utils to be built: > https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/blob/main/CPP/CMakeLists.txt#L135 > https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/blob/main/CPP/CMakeLists.txt#L142 > This is not blocking, but would be nice if possible at some point in future. Definitely after packaging review. > > e) Consider reporting S390x test failure upstream: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136040145 Report filed upstream: https://github.com/elalish/manifold/issues/1335 Here is the updated SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09418401-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09418401-manifold/manifold-3.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2103682 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9393520 to 9418761
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9418761 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386079-manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09418761-manifold/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file AUTHORS is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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.
Any update for the review?
Thanks. Will get to this in the next few days.
Any update for the review? Upstream were unable to reproduce the issue on s390x. Personally, it is best to temporarily exclude that architecture for testing then file a separate issue should the package get approved.
Working on updating the build system: https://github.com/elalish/manifold/issues/1337
Probably the example at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139043584 is sufficient? Am still getting the changes upstream, but this should not delay this review further. s390x test still fails, tests can be excluded.
Yes, it is sufficient although the current spec file excludes tests for s390x architecture. See https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09418401-manifold/manifold.spec
See https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09810605-manifold/ for a spec which excludes the tests on s390x and an srpm.. The main difference is that the library is not built twice to get the python metadata. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139063534 nanobind is bundled as a static library, maybe there is a way to use one shared library for everything that uses nanobind? Not blocking though.
That changes resolves a failed build on Rawhide. Here is updated SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-43-x86_64/09815235-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-43-x86_64/09815235-manifold/manifold-3.3.2-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2115330 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9418761 to 9815319
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9815319 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386079-manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09815319-manifold/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.
FEDORA-2025-dd1bea0216 (alembic-1.8.10-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-dd1bea0216
FEDORA-2025-dd1bea0216 (alembic-1.8.10-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
The previous submission was an old version. Here is the update: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09843405-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09843405-manifold/manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2116466 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9815319 to 9843414
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9843414 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386079-manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09843414-manifold/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.
Thanks. Modified setup.py so that the setup section contains: setup( include_package_data=True, py_modules=['manifold3d'], packages=find_packages( where='.', exclude=['build','CMakeFiles'], ), package_data={ '': ['manifold3d*.so', 'manifold3d.pyi'] }, distclass=BinaryDistribution ) This gives the correct information in top-level.txt Get the following build error when trying to use %pyproject_save_files -l manifold3d File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py", line 829, in pyproject_save_files_and_modules generate_file_list(paths_dict, globs, include_auto) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py", line 627, in generate_file_list raise ValueError(f"Globs did not match any module: {missed_text}") ValueError: Globs did not match any module: manifold3d see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/rawhide/f/pyproject_save_files.py#_627 full build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139451343 Unclear to me at present why this is.
Will it be okay to temporarily disable python subpackage in this case until upstream fixes the issue?
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #27) > Thanks. Modified setup.py so that the setup section contains: > > setup( > include_package_data=True, > py_modules=['manifold3d'], > packages=find_packages( > where='.', > exclude=['build','CMakeFiles'], > ), > package_data={ > '': ['manifold3d*.so', 'manifold3d.pyi'] > }, > distclass=BinaryDistribution > ) > > This gives the correct information in top-level.txt > > Get the following build error when trying to use %pyproject_save_files -l > manifold3d > > File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py", line 829, in > pyproject_save_files_and_modules > generate_file_list(paths_dict, globs, include_auto) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py", line 627, in > generate_file_list > raise ValueError(f"Globs did not match any module: {missed_text}") > ValueError: Globs did not match any module: manifold3d > "{missed_text}" seems like missing hence the pointer "generate_file_list(paths_dict, globs, include_auto)" The previous approach inside setup.py worked despite the incorrect info in top-level.txt. We could address the issue after packaging or disable the python binding subpackage.
Update with disabled python support until upstream fix: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/09905618-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/09905618-manifold/manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2118539 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9843414 to 9905635
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9905635 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386079-manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09905635-manifold/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.
Is it possible to use -DMANIFOLD_EXPORT=OFF with this setting other tests on s390x pass. https://github.com/elalish/manifold/issues/1335
Scratch build confirms the use of '-DMANIFOLD_EXPORT=OFF' allowing other tests on s390x to pass: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140043987 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3987/140043987/build.log
Update SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09911762-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09911762-manifold/manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2118912 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9905635 to 9914379
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9914379 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386079-manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09914379-manifold/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 [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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). Verify they are not in ld 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "zlib License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or ISC License and/or MIT License". 167 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/benson/Projects/fedora- packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.14 [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/help/en(python3-tablib, novelwriter-doc, python-backcall- doc, python3-androguard, python3-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain, thorvg- doc, libstrophe-doc, python3-doubleratchet, python-x3dh-docs, python3-questionary, rauc-doc, python3-cobalt, python-twomemo-docs, python-slixmpp-doc, python3-junitparser, profanity-doc, python3-colorspacious, python3-xeddsa) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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 does not use a name that already exists. Note: Couldn't connect to Pagure, check manually [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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 39206 bytes in 4 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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 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]: 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 python3-manifold3d [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1464320 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 6.5 starting (python version = 3.14.0, NVR = mock-6.5-1.fc43), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --plugin-option=tmpfs:keep_mounted=True --resultdir=/home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/results install /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/results/manifold-devel-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/results/python3-manifold3d-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/results/manifold-doc-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/results/manifold-debuginfo-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/results/python3-manifold3d-debuginfo-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/results/manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079-manifold/results/manifold-debugsource-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 6.5 INFO: Mock Version: 6.5 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf5 detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/manifold-devel-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/python3-manifold3d-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/manifold-doc-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/manifold-debuginfo-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/python3-manifold3d-debuginfo-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/manifold-debugsource-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 8404a882ff0b490d92ca42e7d7a91019 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.gtngbipa:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf5 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 44 install /builddir/manifold-devel-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/python3-manifold3d-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/manifold-doc-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/manifold-debuginfo-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/python3-manifold3d-debuginfo-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm /builddir/manifold-debugsource-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm manifold-devel-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm python3-manifold3d-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm manifold-doc-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpc0f0fqaf')] checks: 32, packages: 5 manifold-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-manifold3d.x86_64: W: no-documentation manifold-doc.x86_64: E: no-binary manifold.spec:67: W: comparison-operator-in-deptoken %{name}%{?_isa}=%{version}-%{release} 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 34 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-manifold3d: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/manifold3d.cpython-314-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elalish/manifold/archive/v3.3.2/manifold-3.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 92a37034c407156f71446f9ca03bd4487adeb1b8246a03d1c047b859b1b9d211 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92a37034c407156f71446f9ca03bd4487adeb1b8246a03d1c047b859b1b9d211 Requires -------- manifold (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) manifold-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libmanifoldc.so.3()(64bit) manifold(x86-64) python3-manifold3d (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) manifold(x86-64)=3.3.2-1.fc44 python(abi) python3.14dist(numpy) rtld(GNU_HASH) manifold-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- manifold: libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libmanifoldc.so.3()(64bit) manifold manifold(x86-64) manifold-devel: cmake(manifold) manifold-devel manifold-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(manifold) python3-manifold3d: bundled(libnanobind) python-manifold3d python3-manifold3d python3-manifold3d(x86-64) python3.14-manifold3d python3.14dist(manifold3d) python3dist(manifold3d) manifold-doc: manifold-doc manifold-doc(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2386079 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Java, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: 1) Please change # Feature toggles: Python bindings enabled by default %bcond python 1 to # Feature toggles: Python bindings disabled by default # until fixed upstream %bcond python 0 2) Other than that it seems ok.
Updates with disabled python binding SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09916153-manifold/manifold.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@designsuite/blender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09916153-manifold/manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2118982 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9914379 to 9916226
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9916226 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386079-manifold/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09916226-manifold/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 [ ] = 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "zlib License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or ISC License and/or MIT License". 167 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/manifold/2386079- manifold/licensecheck.txt [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/help/en(thorvg- doc, python-slixmpp-doc, python-x3dh-docs, profanity-doc, python3-junitparser, python3-doubleratchet, python3-questionary, libstrophe-doc, novelwriter-doc, python3-androguard, python3-colorspacious, rauc-doc, python-backcall-doc, python3-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain, python3-tablib, python3-cobalt, python-twomemo-docs, python3-xeddsa) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 39206 bytes in 4 files. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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]: 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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1464320 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm manifold-devel-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm manifold-doc-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm manifold-3.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpawcqk4fy')] checks: 32, packages: 4 manifold-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation manifold-doc.x86_64: E: no-binary manifold.spec:68: W: comparison-operator-in-deptoken %{name}%{?_isa}=%{version}-%{release} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 31 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: manifold-debuginfo-3.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmphzyibasq')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 4 manifold-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation manifold-doc.x86_64: E: no-binary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 40 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elalish/manifold/archive/v3.3.2/manifold-3.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 92a37034c407156f71446f9ca03bd4487adeb1b8246a03d1c047b859b1b9d211 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92a37034c407156f71446f9ca03bd4487adeb1b8246a03d1c047b859b1b9d211 Requires -------- manifold (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) manifold-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libmanifoldc.so.3()(64bit) manifold(x86-64) manifold-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- manifold: libmanifold.so.3()(64bit) libmanifoldc.so.3()(64bit) manifold manifold(x86-64) manifold-devel: cmake(manifold) manifold-devel manifold-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(manifold) manifold-doc: manifold-doc manifold-doc(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2386079 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, R, Python, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider changing # Disable test for s390x architectures due to # https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136040274 # https://github.com/elalish/manifold/issues/1335 #%%ifnarch s390x %ctest --test-dir %{_vpath_builddir} #%%endif to # Test for s390x architecture fails if DMANIFOLD_EXPORT=ON # due to bugs in dependency assimp, check if can enable when # updating # https://github.com/elalish/manifold/issues/1335 %ctest --test-dir %{_vpath_builddir} b) Consider changing %bcond python 0 BuildRequires: pkgconfig(assimp) -DMANIFOLD_DOWNLOADS=OFF \ and to %bcond python 0 # Export is faulty on s390x due to bugs in assimp %bcond export 0 %if %{with export} BuildRequires: pkgconfig(assimp) %endif -DMANIFOLD_DOWNLOADS=%{?with_export:ON}%{!?with_export:OFF} \ c) Approved. Thanks for your patience.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/manifold
> > c) Approved. Thanks for your patience. Thank you for the detailed review. =)