Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_mixer-3.2.0-1/SDL3_mixer.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_mixer-3.2.0-1/SDL3_mixer-3.2.0-1.fc44.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143967835 Description: SDL3_mixer is an audio management library addon for SDL3. It provides decoding of many popular audio file formats, mixing, various DSP processing effects and positional audio. Fedora Account System Username: suve
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10288801 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2454358-sdl3_mixer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10288801-SDL3_mixer/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'Zlib AND Artistic-1.0-Perl'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 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.
Updated to v3.2.2. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_mixer-3.2.2-1/SDL3_mixer.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_mixer-3.2.2-1/SDL3_mixer-3.2.2-1.fc44.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145458983
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10461257 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2454358-sdl3_mixer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10461257-SDL3_mixer/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'Zlib AND Artistic-1.0-Perl'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 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.
Updated to v3.2.4. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_mixer-3.2.4-1/SDL3_mixer.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_mixer-3.2.4-1/SDL3_mixer-3.2.4-1.fc44.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146203531
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10553900 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2454358-sdl3_mixer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10553900-SDL3_mixer/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'Zlib AND Artistic-1.0-Perl'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 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.
Updated the license tag and switched away from run-time loading of dependencies to dynamic linking at compile-time. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_mixer-3.2.4-2/SDL3_mixer.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_mixer-3.2.4-2/SDL3_mixer-3.2.4-2.fc45.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149268993 Benson, would you have some time to look at this?
It looks like you're missing the %conf section? Your %cmake call is in %prep.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10882328 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2454358-sdl3_mixer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10882328-SDL3_mixer/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.
Why did you add "Provides: bundled(timidity)" ? Timidity isn't provided as a stand alone library/executable and I don't think another package would Require: timidity and expect the embdedded version from SDL3_mixer.
> Why did you add "Provides: bundled(timidity)" ? Because the Packaging Guidelines mandate so: > All packages whose upstreams have no mechanism to build against system libraries > MAY opt to carry bundled libraries, but if they do, they MUST include an indication of what they bundle. > [...] > If the bundled package also exists separately in the distribution, use the name of that package. > Otherwise consult the Naming Guidelines to determine an appropriate name for the library > as if it were entering the distribution as a separate package. > [...] > Then at an appropriate place in your spec, add Provides: bundled(<libname>) = <version> > [...] > If it was not possible to determine a version, use Provides: bundled(<libname>) instead. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling Also, SDL2_mixer does the same thing.
Ah right, thanks for the clarification! I guess the purpose is to provide security and vulnerability tracking, would it make sense to add a version number?
I guess we could use "bundled(timidity) = 0.2i" here, as that's what mentioned in src/timidity/README. However, I don't think that'd be very useful, for two reasons: 1) timidity 0.2i was released in 1995 and the original upstream website is long dead. There is a still-maintained fork, timidity++ (packaged in Fedora) - I assume that if upstream considered it worth the effort, they would've switched a long time ago. 2) Looking at the git repository, the bundled library has been used by SDL_mixer since the very first commit made in 1999. Over the years, it was heavily modified.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
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: [ ]: 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", "zlib License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "mit_whatever", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* Artistic License 1.0 (Perl)", "The Perl 5 License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "Khronos License and/or zlib License", "MIT License and/or zlib License", "Khronos License and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0", "Khronos License". 183 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging- local/reviews/SDL3_mixer/2454358-SDL3_mixer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: SDL3_mixer-3.2.4-2.fc46.x86_64.rpm SDL3_mixer-devel-3.2.4-2.fc46.x86_64.rpm SDL3_mixer-doc-3.2.4-2.fc46.noarch.rpm SDL3_mixer-3.2.4-2.fc46.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/tmp4sz60fs6')] checks: 32, packages: 4 SDL3_mixer.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_mixer-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_mixer.spec: W: no-%check-section SDL3_mixer-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency SDL3_mixer-devel 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 22 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: SDL3_mixer-debuginfo-3.2.4-2.fc46.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/tmp3llcdbsx')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 4 SDL3_mixer.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_mixer-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_mixer-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency SDL3_mixer-devel 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 24 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL_mixer/archive/release-3.2.4/SDL_mixer-release-3.2.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f2ea848ccdf2f394cd4973ee0f6c482e04511044695cccfd46bab6dcd7f780aa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f2ea848ccdf2f394cd4973ee0f6c482e04511044695cccfd46bab6dcd7f780aa Requires -------- SDL3_mixer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libFLAC.so.14()(64bit) libSDL3.so.0()(64bit) libSDL3.so.0(SDL3_0.0.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfluidsynth.so.3()(64bit) libgme.so.0()(64bit) libmpg123.so.0()(64bit) libopusfile.so.0()(64bit) libvorbisfile.so.3()(64bit) libwavpack.so.1()(64bit) libxmp.so.4()(64bit) libxmp.so.4(XMP_4.0)(64bit) libxmp.so.4(XMP_4.1)(64bit) libxmp.so.4(XMP_4.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SDL3_mixer-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config SDL3_mixer(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libSDL3_mixer.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(flac) pkgconfig(fluidsynth) pkgconfig(libgme) pkgconfig(libmpg123) pkgconfig(libxmp) pkgconfig(opusfile) pkgconfig(sdl3) pkgconfig(vorbisfile) pkgconfig(wavpack) SDL3_mixer-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SDL3_mixer-devel Provides -------- SDL3_mixer: SDL3_mixer SDL3_mixer(x86-64) bundled(timidity) libSDL3_mixer.so.0()(64bit) libSDL3_mixer.so.0(SDL3_mixer_0.0.0)(64bit) SDL3_mixer-devel: SDL3_mixer-devel SDL3_mixer-devel(x86-64) cmake(SDL3_mixer) cmake(sdl3_mixer) pkgconfig(sdl3-mixer) SDL3_mixer-doc: SDL3_mixer-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2454358 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Python, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) The CI build has a test-exports: https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL_mixer/blob/main/.github/workflows/main.yml#L21 can this be done here as well? b) If test-exports cannot be done, perhaps consider building the examples and tests, they do not need to be run, but in absence of running tests, they maybe at least a check that it will be possible to use the library. c) Consider explicitly setting -DCMAKE_POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE=ON d) The COPYING file for Timidity is for the Perl Artistic license which is not allowed in Fedora. The README indicates that LGPL and GPL licenses are alternatives, but does not specify exact versions. Raised an issue: https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL_mixer/issues/898 This seems to be the only blocking issue.
Based on the thread in: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/OW4G5IHVBELDYGOFC66G72CHPJTCEHLG/ would suggest making a pull request to upstream with license you think are appropriate and justification for them.