Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09499724-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09499724-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: SPIRV-Cross is a practical tool and library for performing reflection on SPIR-V and disassembling SPIR-V back to high level languages. SPIRV-Cross tries hard to emit readable and clean output from the SPIR-V. The goal is to emit GLSL or MSL that looks like it was written by a human and not awkward IR/assembly-like code. Fedora Account System Username:a-zhn I'm packaging this as a dependency of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334903 which would be my first package contributed.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9552880 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2394940-spirv-cross/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09552880-SPIRV-Cross/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages 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.
Not a full review, just a few quick initial observations: ---- In general, we “SHOULD NOT” package static libraries in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Is there a technical reason why the static (.a) libraries are absolutely necessary? If so, can you document it in the spec file? Otherwise, please pass -DSPIRV_CROSS_STATIC:BOOL=OFF to %cmake, disabling the static libraries. It looks like -DSPIRV_CROSS_STATIC:BOOL=OFF would keep you from building the CLI, so you might have to leave it enabled if you want the CLI. In that case, maybe you can just remove {_libdir}/pkgconfig/spirv-cross-c.pc and the static (.a) libraries after %cmake_install. ---- Is there a reason for this? # Remove cmake package files rm -r %{buildroot}/%{_datadir} Unless they are really broken, .cmake files are generally useful and desirable, sometimes necessary. ---- Please don’t glob across SONAME versions like this: %{_libdir}/libspirv-cross-c-shared.so* https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files Instead, do something like this in %files libs: %{_libdir}/libspirv-cross-c-shared.so.0{,.*} …and put the unversioned .so link in the -devel package, NOT in -libs: %{_libdir}/libspirv-cross-c-shared.so See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages. ---- Since the -devel subpackage depends on the -libs subpackage, it doesn’t need its own copy of LICENSE. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing
(Oh, and "cmake" is cmake 3.x since EPEL8. Now that EPEL7 is EOL, there is no reason to write BuildRequires: cmake3. Just use BuildRequires: cmake.)
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09554567-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09554567-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc42.src.rpm > Is there a technical reason why the static (.a) libraries are absolutely necessary? If so, can you document it in the spec file? Otherwise, please pass -DSPIRV_CROSS_STATIC:BOOL=OFF to %cmake, disabling the static libraries. The static libraries aren't necessary, but I do want to provide the CLI. > Is there a reason for this? > # Remove cmake package files > rm -r %{buildroot}/%{_datadir} I don't have a reason to exclude them, just wasn't using them personally so that's been changed. Missed the detail about unversioned .so files, that should be fixed
Created attachment 2106656 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9552880 to 9555313
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9555313 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2394940-spirv-cross/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09555313-SPIRV-Cross/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.
This is looking pretty good! I just have a few more notes, below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The .cmake files need to be adjusted to reflect the fact that we are not shipping static libraries. The following .cmake files are installed: %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c/cmake/spirv_cross_cConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c/cmake/spirv_cross_cConfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/cmake/spirv_cross_c_sharedConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/cmake/spirv_cross_c_sharedConfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_core/cmake/spirv_cross_coreConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_core/cmake/spirv_cross_coreConfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_cpp/cmake/spirv_cross_cppConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_cpp/cmake/spirv_cross_cppConfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_glsl/cmake/spirv_cross_glslConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_glsl/cmake/spirv_cross_glslConfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_hlsl/cmake/spirv_cross_hlslConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_hlsl/cmake/spirv_cross_hlslConfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_msl/cmake/spirv_cross_mslConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_msl/cmake/spirv_cross_mslConfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_reflect/cmake/spirv_cross_reflectConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_reflect/cmake/spirv_cross_reflectConfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_util/cmake/spirv_cross_utilConfig-noconfig.cmake %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_util/cmake/spirv_cross_utilConfig.cmake Of these, it looks like %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/ corresponds to the shared library and the rest correspond to static libraries. That makes things easy, because static and shared configurations are not tangled up in the same .cmake files. You can just remove the .cmake files for static libraries in %install along with the other static-library files. rm -rv %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/libspirv-cross-{c,core,cpp,glsl,hlsl,msl,reflect,util}/ Then, when listing the directory for the CMake files, make sure you own the directory %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared, not just its contents. That is, instead of %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/cmake/ you can list %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/ or %dir %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/ %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/cmake/ or %dir %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/ %dir %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/cmake/ %{_datadir}/spirv_cross_c_shared/cmake/*.cmake depending on how specific you want to be. - The License is not simply Apache-2.0. Based on their SPDX-License-Identifier header comments, many files are under other licenses. You can write something like this: # The entire source is Apache-2.0, except: # # CC-BY-4.0: # README.md # CODE_OF_CONDUCT.adoc # # MIT: # GLSL.std.450.h # # Apache-2.0 OR MIT: # CMakeLists.txt # main.cpp # spirv_cfg.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_common.hpp # spirv_cpp.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_cross.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_cross.natvis # spirv_cross_c.{cpp,h} # spirv_cross_containers.hpp # spirv_cross_error_handling.hpp # spirv_cross_parsed_ir.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_cross_util.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_glsl.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_hlsl.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_msl.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_parser.{cpp,hpp} # spirv_reflect.{cpp,hpp} License: Apache-2.0 AND CC-BY-4.0 AND MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) Technically, you are allowed to use the rule in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_special_rules_for_or_expressions to simplify this to: License: Apache-2.0 AND CC-BY-4.0 AND MIT However, I don’t personally like or recommend that simplification. I think it is confusing and potentially misleading, and that a simple enumeration of license terms is superior even if it is slightly more verbose. You also need to include the other license texts. Instead of %license LICENSE write %license LICENSE LICENSES/ Finally, since the -libs and -devel packages do not include README.md, you can give them their own License fields, like this: %package libs Summary: Shared library files for %{name} # This subpackage does not include CC-BY-4.0-licensed documentation. License: Apache-2.0 AND MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) Again, the following simplification is allowed, but I don’t like it: License: Apache-2.0 AND MIT - There is an unwanted leading blank line at the beginnings of the descriptions, e.g.: $ rpm -qi -p ./results/SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm Name : SPIRV-Cross Version : 1.4.321 Release : 1.fc44 Architecture: aarch64 Install Date: (not installed) Group : Unspecified Size : 2503518 License : Apache-2.0 Signature : (none) Source RPM : SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc44.src.rpm Build Date : Mon 15 Sep 2025 06:26:06 BST Build Host : bean.musicinmybrain.net URL : https://github.com/KhronosGroup/SPIRV-Cross Summary : A tool designed for parsing and converting SPIR-V to other shader languages Description : SPIRV-Cross is a practical tool and library for performing reflection on SPIR-V and disassembling SPIR-V back to high level languages. SPIRV-Cross tries hard to emit readable and clean output from the SPIR-V. The goal is to emit GLSL or MSL that looks like it was written by a human and not awkward IR/assembly-like code. Write these %description %{project_description} %description libs %{project_description} %description devel %{project_description} like this: %description %{project_description} %description libs %{project_description} %description devel %{project_description} ===== Notes (no change required for approval ===== - I think this is overly clever, and just writing out the binary name would be better. %{_bindir}/%{lower:%{name}} ===== 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: "Apache License 2.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "Khronos License", "Unknown or generated". 4498 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2394940-SPIRV- Cross/licensecheck.txt Some files are not just Apache-2.0. See Issues. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. LICENSE is, but the contents of LICENSES/ need to be installed, too. See Issues. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/spirv_cross_util, /usr/share/spirv_cross_c_shared, /usr/share/spirv_cross_hlsl, /usr/share/spirv_cross_c, /usr/share/spirv_cross_msl, /usr/share/spirv_cross_cpp, /usr/share/spirv_cross_glsl, /usr/share/spirv_cross_core, /usr/share/spirv_cross_reflect The package should own one of these and should not install the rest; see below. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/spirv_cross_glsl, /usr/share/spirv_cross_cpp, /usr/share/spirv_cross_core, /usr/share/spirv_cross_c_shared, /usr/share/spirv_cross_hlsl, /usr/share/spirv_cross_c, /usr/share/spirv_cross_util, /usr/share/spirv_cross_reflect, /usr/share/spirv_cross_msl All but /usr/share/spirv_cross_c_shared are associated with static libraries and should not be shipped; ownership of /usr/share/spirv_cross_c_shared does need to be handled. More discussion in Issues. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 23041 bytes in 1 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SPIRV- Cross-libs , SPIRV-Cross-devel SPIRV-Cross-devel correctly depends on SPIRV-Cross-libs with a fully-versioned dependency. Since the base package SPIRV-Cross contains a statically-linked command-line tool that does not depend on the shared library, it correctly has no dependencies on the -libs subpackage. [?]: Package functions as described. Tests are disabled with a justifying comment; I do not know how to test this manually. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137141107 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests are disabled with a justifying comment, which I take at face value. [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: SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm SPIRV-Cross-libs-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm SPIRV-Cross-devel-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc44.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/tmpg2lky4a_')] checks: 32, packages: 4 SPIRV-Cross.src: W: strange-permission SPIRV-Cross-sdk-1.4.321.tar.gz 666 SPIRV-Cross.src: W: strange-permission SPIRV-Cross.spec 666 SPIRV-Cross.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('shader', 'Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier') SPIRV-Cross.src: E: spelling-error ('shader', 'Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier') SPIRV-Cross.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spirv-cross SPIRV-Cross-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 23 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: SPIRV-Cross-debuginfo-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm SPIRV-Cross-libs-debuginfo-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.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/tmppiyu3ej8')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 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: 5 SPIRV-Cross.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('shader', 'Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier') SPIRV-Cross.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spirv-cross SPIRV-Cross-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 34 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/KhronosGroup/SPIRV-Cross/archive/vulkan-sdk-1.4.321.tar.gz#/SPIRV-Cross-sdk-1.4.321.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4b4bb02effc7a58790e5c61b483065c33144f72e99c6a2707925422bb399091a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b4bb02effc7a58790e5c61b483065c33144f72e99c6a2707925422bb399091a Requires -------- SPIRV-Cross (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SPIRV-Cross-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SPIRV-Cross-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config SPIRV-Cross-libs(aarch-64) libspirv-cross-c-shared.so.0()(64bit) Provides -------- SPIRV-Cross: SPIRV-Cross SPIRV-Cross(aarch-64) SPIRV-Cross-libs: SPIRV-Cross-libs SPIRV-Cross-libs(aarch-64) libspirv-cross-c-shared.so.0()(64bit) SPIRV-Cross-devel: SPIRV-Cross-devel SPIRV-Cross-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(spirv-cross-c-shared) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2394940 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09585669-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09585669-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc42.src.rpmT Suggestions applied. I looked into the tests ran upstream and found a subset that pass with the glslang and spirv-tools versions available
Corrected source RPM URL: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09585669-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09585669-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc42.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09585669-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/a-zhn/ghostty-deps/fedora-42-x86_64/09585669-SPIRV-Cross/SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc42.src.rpm
Hmm, I could have sworn I approved this. I must have forgotten to hit submit. I’ll take care of it shortly.
Created attachment 2107456 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9555313 to 9596165
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9596165 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2394940-spirv-cross/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09596165-SPIRV-Cross/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.
All issues noted in the previous review have been addressed. The package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "Apache License 2.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "Khronos License", "Unknown or generated". 4498 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2394940-SPIRV- Cross/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]: %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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 23041 bytes in 1 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SPIRV- Cross-libs , SPIRV-Cross-devel SPIRV-Cross-devel correctly depends on SPIRV-Cross-libs with a fully-versioned dependency. Since the base package SPIRV-Cross contains a statically-linked command-line tool that does not depend on the shared library, it correctly has no dependencies on the -libs subpackage. [x]: Package functions as described. A few tests are enabled, and they pass. [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]: 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: SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm SPIRV-Cross-libs-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm SPIRV-Cross-devel-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm SPIRV-Cross-1.4.321-1.fc44.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/tmp323cbv2s')] checks: 32, packages: 4 SPIRV-Cross.src: W: strange-permission SPIRV-Cross-sdk-1.4.321.tar.gz 666 SPIRV-Cross.src: W: strange-permission SPIRV-Cross.spec 666 SPIRV-Cross.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('shader', 'Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier') SPIRV-Cross.src: E: spelling-error ('shader', 'Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier') SPIRV-Cross.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spirv-cross SPIRV-Cross-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 26 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: SPIRV-Cross-debuginfo-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm SPIRV-Cross-libs-debuginfo-1.4.321-1.fc44.aarch64.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/tmpxoomm_h4')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 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: 5 SPIRV-Cross.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('shader', 'Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier') SPIRV-Cross.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary spirv-cross SPIRV-Cross-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 37 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/KhronosGroup/SPIRV-Cross/archive/vulkan-sdk-1.4.321.tar.gz#/SPIRV-Cross-sdk-1.4.321.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4b4bb02effc7a58790e5c61b483065c33144f72e99c6a2707925422bb399091a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b4bb02effc7a58790e5c61b483065c33144f72e99c6a2707925422bb399091a Requires -------- SPIRV-Cross (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SPIRV-Cross-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SPIRV-Cross-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config SPIRV-Cross-libs(aarch-64) libspirv-cross-c-shared.so.0()(64bit) Provides -------- SPIRV-Cross: SPIRV-Cross SPIRV-Cross(aarch-64) SPIRV-Cross-libs: SPIRV-Cross-libs SPIRV-Cross-libs(aarch-64) libspirv-cross-c-shared.so.0()(64bit) SPIRV-Cross-devel: SPIRV-Cross-devel SPIRV-Cross-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(spirv-cross-c-shared) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2394940 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks, I've made the following packager sponsorship request at https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/740