Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/meshoptimizer.spec SRPM URL: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/m/meshoptimizer-1.2-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: meshoptimizer is a library that provides algorithms for optimizing meshes for rendering efficiency. It includes vertex-cache, overdraw, and vertex-fetch optimizers, mesh simplification, meshlet generation, and vertex and index buffer codecs. Fedora Account System username: luya Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=150391176 rpmlint output: ========================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================== rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /home/luya/.local/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: 6 meshoptimizer.src: E: spelling-error ('optimizers', '%description -l en_US optimizers -> optimizer, optimizes, optimizer s') meshoptimizer.src: E: spelling-error ('meshlet', '%description -l en_US meshlet -> mesh let, mesh-let, mettlesome') meshoptimizer.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('optimizers', '%description -l en_US optimizers -> optimizer, optimizes, optimizer s') meshoptimizer.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('meshlet', '%description -l en_US meshlet -> mesh let, mesh-let, mettlesome') meshoptimizer-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Additional notes: - This package is needed to enable Blender 5.2's system meshoptimizer support. - Upstream provides CMake package metadata and the imported target meshoptimizer::meshoptimizer. - The package builds a shared library with SONAME libmeshoptimizer.so.1. - Upstream's fixed codec fixtures assume little-endian memory layout. The demo test suite is skipped only on big-endian s390x; see: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=150390963
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - The spec should have "Provides: bundled(xxx)" for each of the bundled items in the extern directory, so I think something like this: Provides: bundled(cgltf-devel) = 1.15 Provides: bundled(fast_obj-devel) = 1.3 Provides: bundled(sdefl-devel) I don't see a version number in sdefl.h. The "-devel" endings on the names are because each of them is a header-only package. - Due to the inclusion of extern/sdefl.h in the package, its license needs to be added to the License field, namely: (MIT OR Unlicense) - Just a little tip, not an issue: the "/refs/tags" part of the Source URL can be omitted and the source file still downloads. - The spec file provided in the review bug and the spec file inside the SRPM differ; see below. Which version do you intend to use to build? ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0", "*No copyright* MIT License". 85 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2537184-meshoptimizer/licensecheck.txt License of extern/sdefl.h is missing. See above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. See above. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 98450 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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. [-]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: meshoptimizer-1.2-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm meshoptimizer-devel-1.2-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm meshoptimizer-1.2-1.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/tmpipptaa3n')] checks: 32, packages: 3 meshoptimizer.src: E: spelling-error ('optimizers', '%description -l en_US optimizers -> optimizer, optimizes, optimizer s') meshoptimizer.src: E: spelling-error ('meshlet', '%description -l en_US meshlet -> mesh let, mesh-let, mettlesome') meshoptimizer.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('optimizers', '%description -l en_US optimizers -> optimizer, optimizes, optimizer s') meshoptimizer.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('meshlet', '%description -l en_US meshlet -> mesh let, mesh-let, mettlesome') meshoptimizer-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 22 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: meshoptimizer-debuginfo-1.2-1.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/tmpp5awj9ue')] 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: 2.10.0 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: 3 meshoptimizer.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('optimizers', '%description -l en_US optimizers -> optimizer, optimizes, optimizer s') meshoptimizer.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('meshlet', '%description -l en_US meshlet -> mesh let, mesh-let, mettlesome') meshoptimizer-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zeux/meshoptimizer/archive/refs/tags/v1.2/meshoptimizer-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e40f71b809cdf3361b9a4def85fd44534e8733ce29d4b943c145b76859e4c2b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e40f71b809cdf3361b9a4def85fd44534e8733ce29d4b943c145b76859e4c2b4 Requires -------- meshoptimizer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) meshoptimizer-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libmeshoptimizer.so.1()(64bit) meshoptimizer(x86-64) Provides -------- meshoptimizer: libmeshoptimizer.so.1()(64bit) meshoptimizer meshoptimizer(x86-64) meshoptimizer-devel: cmake(meshoptimizer) meshoptimizer-devel meshoptimizer-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(meshoptimizer) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jamesjer/2537184-meshoptimizer/srpm/meshoptimizer.spec 2026-09-19 19:12:58.578501246 -0600 +++ /home/jamesjer/2537184-meshoptimizer/srpm-unpacked/meshoptimizer.spec 2026-09-18 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 @@ -45,4 +45,19 @@ %cmake_install +mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pkgconfig +cat > %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/meshoptimizer.pc <<'EOF' +prefix=%{_prefix} +exec_prefix=${prefix} +libdir=%{_libdir} +includedir=%{_includedir} + +Name: meshoptimizer +Description: Mesh optimization library +URL: %{url} +Version: %{version} +Libs: -L${libdir} -lmeshoptimizer +Cflags: -I${includedir} +EOF + %check @@ -65,4 +80,5 @@ %{_libdir}/libmeshoptimizer.so %{_libdir}/cmake/meshoptimizer/ +%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/meshoptimizer.pc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2537184 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Haskell, PHP, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Ruby, Java, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you the review. I updated the package adding the bundled header Provides, simplified the Source0 as suggested, and took account of sdefl-devel licensing. Let's use the spec file from the SRPM SPEC: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/meshoptimizer.spec SRPM: https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/m/meshoptimizer-1.2-1.fc45.src.rpm The COPR build is on https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/designsuite/blender/build/11005666/
That looks great. This package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/meshoptimizer Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
Build available on https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=meshoptimizer
FEDORA-2026-cd957629c1 (meshoptimizer-1.3-1.fc46) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 46. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-cd957629c1
FEDORA-2026-cd957629c1 (meshoptimizer-1.3-1.fc46) has been pushed to the Fedora 46 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.