Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/monado.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/monado-25.1.0-1.20260326gitd5fa9af.fc43/monado-25.1.0-1.20260326gitd5fa9af.fc45.src.rpm Description: The open source OpenXR runtime Fedora Account System Username: jsteffan
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10273316 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2452892-monado/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10273316-monado/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - License file driver.vrresources.license is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Systemd user unit service file(s) in monado Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units 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.
Hi, I will take this one, review to follow. Regards Phil
Changelog: - Fix absolute symlink - Update to latest upstream Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/monado.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/monado-25.1.0-1.20260416gitc32301d.fc43/monado-25.1.0-1.20260416gitc32301d.fc45.src.rpm
Hi, Builds Local X86_64: Good COPR: Fail i386 ppc64le s390x Regards Phil
Changelog: - ExclusiveArch x86_64 and aarch64 - missing deps that fail to build, remove all of the conditionals and just drop the partially supported arches Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/monado.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/monado-25.1.0-1.20260416gitc32301d.fc43/monado-25.1.0-1.20260416gitc32301d.fc45.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10355225 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2452892-monado/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10355225-monado/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - License file driver.vrresources.license is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Systemd user unit service file(s) in monado Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units 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.
Hi, Build look good on local, COPR and scratch. RPM Lint ======== Things you may wish to look at. Any information available would be useful. monado.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/steamvr-monado/bin/linux64/driver_monado.so monado.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libopenxr_monado.so monado.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 25.1.0-1 ['25.1.0-1.20260416gitc32301d.fc45', '25.1.0-1.20260416gitc32301d'] SPEC file ========= The large amount of file licensing explaination maybe could be moved to a seperate file with reference to that file in the spec file. Regards Phil
(In reply to Phil Wyett from comment #7) > Things you may wish to look at. Any information available would be useful. > > monado.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib64/steamvr-monado/bin/linux64/driver_monado.so Good spot, I've fixed the mode issues that prevented it from being stripped. > monado.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libopenxr_monado.so This is permitted under the support for OpenXR's design. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Unversioned_shared_objects/ However, I hadn't yet moved these to a private directory so thanks for the reminder! > monado.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 25.1.0-1 > ['25.1.0-1.20260416gitc32301d.fc45', '25.1.0-1.20260416gitc32301d'] I think this is expected for now. I'm using a git snapshot because of the slow Monado release schedule. > SPEC file > ========= > > The large amount of file licensing explaination maybe could be moved to a > seperate file with reference to that file in the spec file. Do you have an example of how to do this right? I also am annoyed with them (finding and having them in the spec).
Changelog: - Implement https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Unversioned_shared_objects/ - Fix unstripped ELF - Update to latest Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jsteffan/imrsv/monado.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jsteffan/imrsv/monado-25.1.0-1.20260501gitfea2ceb.fc43/monado-25.1.0-1.20260501gitfea2ceb.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2139367 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10355225 to 10421902
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10421902 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2452892-monado/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10421902-monado/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file driver.vrresources.license is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Systemd user unit service file(s) in monado Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units 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.
> > SPEC file > > ========= > > > > The large amount of file licensing explaination maybe could be moved to a > > seperate file with reference to that file in the spec file. > > Do you have an example of how to do this right? I also am annoyed with them > (finding and having them in the spec). For me, I would remove the data from the spec file and put it in a file, say 'extended_license_info.txt'. Under the 'License' block in the spec file, I would add similar to below. # For extended information on the packages licenses, see 'extended_license_info.txt' in the repo root. I would import the rpm after creating the repo and after then commit/push 'extended_license_info.txt' to the repo. Regards Phil
Hi, Love the amazing amount of work you have done to make this this and other related packages ready for Fedora. I think we are ready to move on, so I will mark my review '+' - Good as I see it. As a packager, you will now be able to request the repo for the package and then import your initial rpm. I looked forward to seeing this package in Fedora and also the improvements and enhancements you will make over coming months and years. Regards Phil
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/monado Monitoring: Anitya project is accessible by this link `https://release-monitoring.org/project/242256` you can modify it manually. Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.
FEDORA-2026-c4c9bc5a77 (monado-25.1.0^20260505git6c6fab4-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-c4c9bc5a77
FEDORA-2026-c4c9bc5a77 (monado-25.1.0^20260505git6c6fab4-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.