https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
Bug ID: 2151767 Summary: Review Request: openpgl - Open Path Guiding Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... Description: The Intel® Open Path Guiding Library (Intel® Open PGL) implements a set of representations and training algorithms needed to integrate path guiding into a renderer. Fedora Account System Username:luya
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Fedora review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vascom2@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vascom2@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
--- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- 1. Is this typos? %description The Intel® Open Path Guiding Library (Intel® Open PGL)
2. Remove %doc LICENSE.txt from %files devel It will be installed as dependency.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
--- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- 1. My bad. I forgot to remove the (r) symbol so it is now removed. 2. Removed
Update SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
--- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Remove LICENSE.txt from %doc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
--- Comment #5 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- A bug within the build system forced the use of LICENSE.txt to %doc. See https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
--- Comment #6 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Just remove that file in %install section rm %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/LICENSE.txt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
--- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Done. Updated SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Approved
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]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "zlib License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2151767-openpgl/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 5 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]: 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). [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. [-]: %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]: 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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 4
openpgl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenPathGuidingLibrary/openpgl/archive/refs/tags/v0.4.1-b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : db63f5dac5cfa8c110ede241f0c413f00db0c4748697381c4fa23e0f9e82a754 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db63f5dac5cfa8c110ede241f0c413f00db0c4748697381c4fa23e0f9e82a754
Requires -------- openpgl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libtbb.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
openpgl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libopenpgl.so.0()(64bit) openpgl(x86-64)
openpgl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
openpgl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- openpgl: libopenpgl.so.0()(64bit) openpgl openpgl(x86-64)
openpgl-devel: cmake(openpgl) openpgl-devel openpgl-devel(x86-64)
openpgl-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libopenpgl.so.0.4.1-0.4.1-0.1.beta.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) openpgl-debuginfo openpgl-debuginfo(x86-64)
openpgl-debugsource: openpgl-debugsource openpgl-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2151767 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, PHP, R, Python, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openpgl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151767
--- Comment #10 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Thank you Vasily and Gwyn for the quick process on making the package available.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org