Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_net-3.2.0-1/SDL3_net.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_net-3.2.0-1/SDL3_net-3.2.0-1.fc44.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147099024 Description: SDL3_net is a portable network library for use with SDL3. It's goal is to simplify the use of the usual socket interfaces and use SDL3 to handle common portable functionality such as threading and reporting errors. Fedora Account System Username: suve
Hi, just two nitpicks: - Documentation is small enough to be included in the -devel subpackage. - Upstream provides signatures[1][2] for source releases. Consider verifying them with %{gpgverify}[3] [1] https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL_net/releases/download/release-3.2.0/SDL3_net-3.2.0.tar.gz.sig [2] https://www.libsdl.org/signing-keys.php [3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures Otherwise, looks good to me. 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. [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 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. [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: %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: SDL3_net-3.2.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm SDL3_net-devel-3.2.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm SDL3_net-doc-3.2.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm SDL3_net-3.2.0-1.fc45.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/tmpz6pa830w')] checks: 32, packages: 4 SDL3_net.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_net-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_net.spec: W: no-%check-section SDL3_net-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency SDL3_net-devel 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 21 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: SDL3_net-debuginfo-3.2.0-1.fc45.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/tmpny5oe_pg')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 32, packages: 4 SDL3_net.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_net-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_net-doc.noarch: E: devel-dependency SDL3_net-devel 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 24 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL_net/archive/release-3.2.0/SDL_net-release-3.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 195036ba82322e03fd3562149634fb582e5e9298ccc6cb2c5e362bf40c5018be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 195036ba82322e03fd3562149634fb582e5e9298ccc6cb2c5e362bf40c5018be Requires -------- SDL3_net (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libSDL3.so.0()(64bit) libSDL3.so.0(SDL3_0.0.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SDL3_net-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config SDL3_net(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libSDL3_net.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(sdl3) SDL3_net-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SDL3_net-devel Provides -------- SDL3_net: SDL3_net SDL3_net(x86-64) libSDL3_net.so.0()(64bit) libSDL3_net.so.0(SDL3_net_0.0.0)(64bit) SDL3_net-devel: SDL3_net-devel SDL3_net-devel(x86-64) cmake(SDL3_net) cmake(sdl3_net) pkgconfig(sdl3-net) SDL3_net-doc: SDL3_net-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2493888 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Switched to downloading sources from upstream homepage instead of GitHub and added %gpgverify to %prep. I was a bit reluctant about folding -doc back into -devel, but none of the other SDL* packages have a separate -doc package, so eh, I guess it'll be more consistent this way. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_net-3.2.0-2/SDL3_net.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/SDL3_net-3.2.0-2/SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc44.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147244928
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666335 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2493888-sdl3_net/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666335-SDL3_net/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.
Thanks! Looks good to me now. 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. [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 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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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_net-3.2.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm SDL3_net-devel-3.2.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc45.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/tmpxq3e4llg')] checks: 32, packages: 3 SDL3_net.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3_net.spec: W: no-%check-section 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: SDL3_net-debuginfo-3.2.0-2.fc45.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/tmp5g4c56_m')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 32, packages: 3 SDL3_net.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_net/release/SDL3_net-3.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 098522fc26d4e302ef9348aee6e76e67fe504dfefd7f596236568f8330570c41 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 098522fc26d4e302ef9348aee6e76e67fe504dfefd7f596236568f8330570c41 https://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_net/release/SDL3_net-3.2.0.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : beecc16fc302bceacbd1d54e005a2c5fa2872e5beba0e58f74766985f92e9518 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : beecc16fc302bceacbd1d54e005a2c5fa2872e5beba0e58f74766985f92e9518 Requires -------- SDL3_net (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libSDL3.so.0()(64bit) libSDL3.so.0(SDL3_0.0.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) SDL3_net-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config SDL3_net(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libSDL3_net.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(sdl3) Provides -------- SDL3_net: SDL3_net SDL3_net(x86-64) libSDL3_net.so.0()(64bit) libSDL3_net.so.0(SDL3_net_0.0.0)(64bit) SDL3_net-devel: SDL3_net-devel SDL3_net-devel(x86-64) cmake(SDL3_net) cmake(sdl3_net) pkgconfig(sdl3-net) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2493888 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, PHP, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/SDL3_net Monitoring: Anitya project is accessible by this link `https://release-monitoring.org/project/390566` you can modify it manually. Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.
FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad (SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad
FEDORA-2026-733f513122 (SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-733f513122
FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-733f513122 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-733f513122 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-733f513122 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-fbad8cb4ad (SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-733f513122 (SDL3_net-3.2.0-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.