Spec URL: https://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/libtfmxaudiodecoder.spec SRPM URL: https://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/libtfmxaudiodecoder-1.0.0-0.1.20251102git.fc43.src.rpm Description: This music player backend library provides a C API for TFMX and Future Composer music files from the Commodore Amiga era of computing. Fedora Account System Username: mschwendt Will be needed for updating a related Audacious plugin package in Fedora.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9758902 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2411920-libtfmxaudiodecoder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09758902-libtfmxaudiodecoder/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.
Spec URL: https://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/libtfmxaudiodecoder.spec SRPM URL: https://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/libtfmxaudiodecoder-1.0.0-0.1.20251103gita03654e.fc43.src.rpm
Use %make_build and %make_install macros? Use a line per buildreq. and sort them?
Created attachment 2112492 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9758902 to 9762715
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9762715 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2411920-libtfmxaudiodecoder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09762715-libtfmxaudiodecoder/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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libtfmxaudiodecoder-1.0.0-0.1.20251103gita03654e.fc44.x86_64.rpm libtfmxaudiodecoder-devel-1.0.0-0.1.20251103gita03654e.fc44.x86_64.rpm libtfmxaudiodecoder-1.0.0-0.1.20251103gita03654e.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/tmp9hvd7q6i')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libtfmxaudiodecoder.spec: W: no-%check-section libtfmxaudiodecoder.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libtfmxaudiodecoder/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 28 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libtfmxaudiodecoder-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.1.20251103gita03654e.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/tmpvpiyazp3')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 3 libtfmxaudiodecoder.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libtfmxaudiodecoder.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 libtfmxaudiodecoder.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libtfmxaudiodecoder/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 27 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mschwendt/libtfmxaudiodecoder/archive/a03654eb45901207bd0a1df75e081c1d86e2663d/libtfmxaudiodecoder-a03654e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0693b9f9751212c03c6258bdd725e5b27cda07ed4c1bc2284abe71bdd53b3cad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0693b9f9751212c03c6258bdd725e5b27cda07ed4c1bc2284abe71bdd53b3cad Requires -------- libtfmxaudiodecoder (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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libtfmxaudiodecoder-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtfmxaudiodecoder(x86-64) libtfmxaudiodecoder.so.1()(64bit) Provides -------- libtfmxaudiodecoder: libtfmxaudiodecoder libtfmxaudiodecoder(x86-64) libtfmxaudiodecoder.so.1()(64bit) libtfmxaudiodecoder-devel: libtfmxaudiodecoder-devel libtfmxaudiodecoder-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libtfmxaudiodecoder) Summary: -------- a) fix fsf address issue b) a %check section with some basic tests would be nice (optional) c) use macros %make_* macros (optional), see prev. comment d) split into 3 lines: BuildRequires: automake autoconf libtool and sort buildreq (optional)
Spec URL: https://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/libtfmxaudiodecoder.spec SRPM URL: https://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/libtfmxaudiodecoder-1.0.0-0.2.20251104git740c78b.fc43.src.rpm > a) fix fsf address issue Fixed by the new snapshot. Github's pregenerated GPLv2 LICENSE file contained the FSF's current postal address, but rpmlint expects the web page URL instead, so the older upstream fix was insufficient. > b) a %check section with some basic tests would be nice (optional) So far there are no automated ones, which would make a difference. > c) use macros %make_* macros (optional), see prev. comment Sure. > d) split into 3 lines: BuildRequires: automake autoconf libtool and sort buildreq (optional) Agreed. I've also replaced $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} as to be more consistent with the RPM macro usage.
Thanks for quick reply, package is APPROVED.
Minor comments: > %make_build %{?_smp_mflags} You don't need %{?_smp_mflags}, as %make_build includes -j flag. > %make_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" Same, thing you can remove DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" it's already included.
Thank you! I'll revisit the current guidelines.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libtfmxaudiodecoder