Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/10841823-sensinghub/sensinghub.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/10841823-sensinghub/sensinghub-2.2.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Description Qualcomm Sensing Hub (QSH) is an always-on, low-power interface designed to collect, process, and combine sensor and contextual data. It offers stable APIs that enable applications and services to interact with the hub efficiently, reducing the need for frequent application processor wake ups. Reproducible: Always
I'm going to review this soon.
Full review done, I've found 2 must fix issues and 1 should fix issue, see the top of the full review below. Please address these in a new version. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST fix ===== [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. sensinghub is too generic, please rename the package to qcom-sensinghub and file an issue upstream asking upstream to rename the project [!]: %changelog must be %autochangelog ===== Should FIX ===== [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: sensinghub-2.2.2-build/sensinghub-2.2.2/configure.ac:25 See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools Maybe file an upstream issue for this? ===== 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 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 is ExclusiveArch: %{arm64} because it is a hw-specific pkg [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. [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 707 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. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [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.
Hello Hans, here are the changes SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/10865754-qcom-sensinghub/qcom-sensinghub.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/10865754-qcom-sensinghub/qcom-sensinghub-2.2.3-1.fc46.src.rpm
Thanks, this looks good to me now: approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qcom-sensinghub Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`