[Bug 1918275] Review Request: libusb-compat-0.1 - Compatibility shim
around libusb-1.0 offering the old 0.1 API
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918275
Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> ---
Full review done, with the help of fedora-review; and with the parts which
fedora-review does not do automatically filled in manually.
I have found 2 small issues:
1. The F34 rebuild has build a libusb-0.1.7-3.fc34, so you need to bump the
release field for the Obsoletes to work.
2. When expecting the Requires of the new package (which the fedora-review tool
lists, see below) I noticed that it no longer has a (generated) Requires on:
'libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)' . Digging a bit deeper this is related to
libusb-compat supporting ldopen-ing libusb1 so that it does not polute the ld
namespace with libusb1 symbols. This is not something new, but until now this
was not being used on Fedora:
The build log for the F33 build in koji has this:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/libusb/0.1.7/1.fc33/data/log...
"checking for SONAME of libusb-1.0... sed: -e expression #1, char 40: Invalid
back reference unknown"
which is causing the configure script / code to fallback to direct linking.
Where as the build log for the F34 build in koji has this:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/libusb/0.1.7/3.fc34/data/log...
"checking for SONAME of libusb-1.0... libusb-1.0.so.0"
And ldopen is used (I assume) and the (generated) Requires on:
'libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)' is gone. This means that an explicit:
Requires: libusb1
Needs to be added to the spec-file for the main package.
I trust that you will fix these before importing this, so this packages is
Approved.
See below for all the review-checks done:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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
(LGPLv2+)
[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 without FPC exception.
[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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[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 below).
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes
signatures.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[-]: 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: libusb-compat-0.1-0.1.7-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb-compat-0.1-devel-0.1.7-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb-compat-0.1-tests-examples-0.1.7-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb-compat-0.1-debuginfo-0.1.7-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb-compat-0.1-debugsource-0.1.7-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb-compat-0.1-0.1.7-3.fc34.src.rpm
libusb-compat-0.1.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libusb-0.1.so.4.4.4 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
libusb-compat-0.1-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libusb-devel
libusb-compat-0.1-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libusb-compat-0.1-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-config
libusb-compat-0.1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libusb-compat-0.1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
libusb-compat-0.1-lsusb
libusb-compat-0.1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
libusb-compat-0.1-testlibusb
libusb-compat-0.1.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides deprecated()
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Requires
--------
libusb-compat-0.1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
libusb-compat-0.1-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
/usr/bin/sh
libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit)
libusb-compat-0.1(x86-64)
pkgconfig(libusb-1.0)
libusb-compat-0.1-tests-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit)
libusb-compat-0.1(x86-64)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
libusb-compat-0.1-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libusb-compat-0.1-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3 years, 3 months
[Bug 1918275] Review Request: libusb-compat-0.1 - Compatibility shim
around libusb-1.0 offering the old 0.1 API
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918275
Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |package-review(a)lists.fedora
| |project.org
Component|fedora-review |Package Review
Assignee|ngompa13(a)gmail.com |hdegoede(a)redhat.com
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
|libusb-compat-0.1 to |libusb-compat-0.1 -
|replace libusb |Compatibility shim around
| |libusb-1.0 offering the old
| |0.1 API
--- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> ---
I'm doing a full review of this now, taking this and moving it to assigned.
Also fixing up the Component and Summary to match the template, to make sure
non of the automated tooling trips over this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3 years, 3 months
[Bug 1918269] Review Request: libusb1 - Library for accessing USB
devices
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918269
Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Review Request: libusb1 to |Review Request: libusb1 -
|replace libusbx |Library for accessing USB
| |devices
--- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> ---
Fixing up the Summary to match the template, to make sure non of the automated
tooling trips over this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3 years, 3 months
[Bug 1918269] Review Request: libusb1 to replace libusbx
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918269
Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> ---
Ok, that worked.
Full review done, with the help of fedora-review; and with the parts which
fedora-review does not do automatically filled in manually.
I have found 2 small issues:
1. The tests-examples package should have its own License tag, which should be
these 2 lines:
# The fxload example is GPLv2+, the rest is LGPLv2+, like libusb itself.
License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+
2. The devel-doc subpkg can be installed without the %license being brought in
by deps. Please make it have a Requires on the devel subpackage (or add the
%license to its %files).
3. The package really should have a "BuildRequires: gcc" atm this is being
brought in by the libtool BR, but it would be good to be explicit here.
I trust that you will fix at least 1. and 2. before importing this, so this
packages is Approved.
See below for all the review-checks done:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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
(LGPLv2+)
(tests-examples subpackage license is wrong, fxload is GPLv2+)
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
(devel-docs can be installed without the %license being installed)
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[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.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[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 below).
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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:
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libusb1-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb1-devel-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb1-devel-doc-1.0.24-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
libusb1-tests-examples-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb1-debuginfo-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb1-debugsource-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
libusb1-1.0.24-1.fc34.src.rpm
libusb1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libusb -> libelous
libusb1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac
OS, mac-OS
libusb1-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
libusb-example-fxload
libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
libusb-example-listdevs
libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-example-xusb
libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-test-libusb
libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-test-stress
libusb1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libusb -> libelous
libusb1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS,
mac-OS
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3 years, 3 months
[Bug 1918269] Review Request: libusb1 to replace libusbx
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918269
Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |package-review(a)lists.fedora
| |project.org
Component|fedora-review |Package Review
--- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> ---
Erm, this bug actually is wrong, this is a bug against the fedora-review
package which contains a script to help with reviewing new packages. The
correct way to file a review bug is by using this template:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedora-re...
I think the biggest difference is the component, let me see if changing the
component changes this in to a proper Review Request, allowing me to set the
fedora-review flag...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
3 years, 3 months