https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567089

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Ha I used this extensively, it's great.

- Should you also generate the python3-vmaf library from the python/ subdirectory? And install the python/scripts?

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]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache", "CC0", "LGPL (v2.1)", "NTP", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 921 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/vmaf/review- vmaf/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 81920 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libvmaf [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: 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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1454080 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: vmaf-1.3.3-1.20180407git510e257.fc29.x86_64.rpm libvmaf-1.3.3-1.20180407git510e257.fc29.x86_64.rpm libvmaf-devel-1.3.3-1.20180407git510e257.fc29.x86_64.rpm vmaf-debugsource-1.3.3-1.20180407git510e257.fc29.x86_64.rpm vmaf-1.3.3-1.20180407git510e257.fc29.src.rpm vmaf.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vmaf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vmafossexec libvmaf.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vmaf -> mafia libvmaf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vmaf -> mafia libvmaf.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libvmaf.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libvmaf-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vmaf -> mafia libvmaf-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vmaf -> mafia libvmaf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vmaf-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567089

--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/vmaf.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/vmaf-1.3.9-1.20180914gita654f6f.fc28.src.rpm Description: Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion

koji scratch build for f29 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29790799

I don't use the python binding yet, I only plan to use it via ffmpeg. But if you can have a working python3 package (given python2 start to be deprecated), I would welcome a patch.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567089

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |

--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- I do not see any concerns. Lifting FE-Legal.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567089

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Sorry I didn't notice the mails for this.

No issue with the current package but I still think you should package the Python3 library as well.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567089

--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vmaf