Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/libultrahdr.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/libultrahdr-1.4.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: A fast image processing library with low memory needs Fedora Account System Username: topazus
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10056067 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432644-libultrahdr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056067-libultrahdr/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/libultrahdr.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/libultrahdr-1.4.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10056088 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432644-libultrahdr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056088-libultrahdr/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 does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/licenses/libultrahdr/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "BSD 3-Clause License". 137 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libultrahdr/2432644- libultrahdr/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [ ]: 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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3800 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: [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: libultrahdr-1.4.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libultrahdr-devel-1.4.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libultrahdr-1.4.0-1.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/tmpbzkya2lb')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libultrahdr-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ultrahdr_app 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libultrahdr-devel-debuginfo-1.4.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm libultrahdr-debuginfo-1.4.0-1.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/tmplhev_k4m')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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 libultrahdr-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ultrahdr_app 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 35 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/libultrahdr/archive/v1.4.0/libultrahdr-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e7e1252e2c44d8ed6b99ee0f67a3caf2d8a61c43834b13b1c3cd485574c03ab9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e7e1252e2c44d8ed6b99ee0f67a3caf2d8a61c43834b13b1c3cd485574c03ab9 Requires -------- libultrahdr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc 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) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libultrahdr-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config glibc 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) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libuhdr.so.1()(64bit) libultrahdr(x86-64) pkgconfig(libjpeg) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libultrahdr: libuhdr.so.1()(64bit) libultrahdr libultrahdr(x86-64) libultrahdr-devel: libultrahdr-devel libultrahdr-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libuhdr) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2432644 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Ocaml, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141557451 b) Please change: %{_libdir}/libuhdr.so.1* to %{_libdir}/libuhdr.so.1{,.*} see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files c) Please rename the second license file to ensure both license files get installed d) Any idea of the original source for the bundled image-io?
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/libultrahdr.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/libultrahdr-1.4.0-1.fc44.src.rpm > a) Koji build: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141557451 Thanks for koji build. > b) Please change: > %{_libdir}/libuhdr.so.1* > to > %{_libdir}/libuhdr.so.1{,.*} > see > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files Done. > c) Please rename the second license file to ensure both license files get installed Done. > d) Any idea of the original source for the bundled image-io? It should be related to https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/image_io/
Created attachment 2123714 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10056088 to 10056195
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10056195 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432644-libultrahdr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056195-libultrahdr/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.
Thank. Approved. Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2432309 would be appreciated if time allows.
Thanks for reviewing. I will take the Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2432309
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libultrahdr
FEDORA-2026-6326b1f001 (libultrahdr-1.4.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-6326b1f001
FEDORA-2026-6326b1f001 (libultrahdr-1.4.0-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Thanks for packaging libultrahdr! Can I suggest a few more fixes for backporting, as there's no indication of when the next version will come out: https://github.com/google/libultrahdr/pull/356 https://github.com/google/libultrahdr/pull/373
Thanks! FWIW, the description "A fast image processing library with low memory needs" seems to describe libvips. It should probably be updated to something like "Library for encoding and decoding Ultra HDR images".
(In reply to Kleis Auke Wolthuizen from comment #14) > Thanks! FWIW, the description "A fast image processing library with low > memory needs" seems to describe libvips. It should probably be updated to > something like "Library for encoding and decoding Ultra HDR images". Thanks for catching this. I have fixed the summary description. And I used https://github.com/google/libultrahdr/pull/383 as patch to rebuild the package.