[Bug 2304025] New: Review Request: pangolin - Lightweight library for managing OpenGL display / interaction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
Bug ID: 2304025 Summary: Review Request: pangolin - Lightweight library for managing OpenGL display / interaction Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jonathansteffan@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.f... Description:
Pangolin is a set of lightweight and portable utility libraries for prototyping 3D, numeric or video based programs and algorithms. It is used quite widely in the field of Computer Vision as a means to remove platform-specific boilerplate and make it easy to visualize data.
The general ethos of Pangolin is to minimize boilerplate and maximize portability and flexibility through simple interfaces and factories over things like windowing and video. It also offers a suite of utilities for interactive debugging, such as 3D manipulation, plotters, tweak variables, and a drop-down Quake-like console for python scripting and live tweaking.
Fedora Account System Username: jsteffan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |topazus@outlook.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |topazus@outlook.com
--- Comment #1 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Taking this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #2 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- 1.
%global date 20240802
Remove the redundant line.
2.
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause AND zlib AND OFL-1.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
License: MIT AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause AND zlib AND OFL-1.0
%license LICENCE %license components/pango_core/include/NaturalSort/LICENSE.md %license components/pango_core/include/pangolin/utils/xml/license.txt %license components/pango_opengl/src/fonts/AnonymousPro.txt
The four license files are MIT, MIT, BSL-1.0 OR MIT, and OFL-1.1 license respectively. What files are under BSD-3-Clause, BSD-2-Clause, and zlib licenses? You can add a few comments for concise clarification above the license field.
3.
%{_libdir}/libpango_core.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_core.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_display.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_display.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_geometry.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_geometry.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_glgeometry.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_glgeometry.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_image.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_image.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_opengl.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_opengl.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_packetstream.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_packetstream.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_plot.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_plot.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_python.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_python.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_scene.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_scene.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_tools.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_tools.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_vars.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_vars.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_video.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_video.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libpango_windowing.so.0 %{_libdir}/libpango_windowing.so.0.9.2 %{_libdir}/libtinyobj.so.0 %{_libdir}/libtinyobj.so.0.9.2
These lines of shared library files are a bit long. For example, they can be shorter with * glob symbol like: %{_libdir}/libpango_*.so.0* %{_libdir}/libtinyobj.so.0*
---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause AND zlib AND OFL-1.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: 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: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "zlib License", "MIT License and/or The Unlicense", "*No copyright* MIT License", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or MIT License". 229 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/pangolin/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses, /usr, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src, /usr/lib, /usr/share, /usr/lib64, /usr/src/debug, /usr/include [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /usr, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib, /usr/share, /usr/include, /usr/share/doc, /usr/src/debug, /usr/lib64, /usr/src [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 12853 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: pangolin-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.rpm pangolin-devel-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.rpm pangolin-debuginfo-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.rpm pangolin-debugsource-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.rpm pangolin-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpzwc_xu74')] checks: 32, packages: 5
pangolin.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/licenses/pangolin/license.txt pangolin.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/pangolin/license.txt pangolin-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation pangolin.src: W: invalid-license OFL-1.0 pangolin.x86_64: W: invalid-license OFL-1.0 pangolin-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license OFL-1.0 pangolin-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license OFL-1.0 pangolin-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license OFL-1.0 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings, 110 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.4 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pangolin-debuginfo-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpj7ypbohr')] checks: 32, packages: 1
pangolin-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license OFL-1.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 38 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pangolin-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pangolin-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pangolin-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pangolin". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 32, packages: 4
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/stevenlovegrove/Pangolin/archive/v0.9.2/Pangolin-0.9.2.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 348f5c082d69afbb74b1af022d193cc0018ef8032a39409eb3f99c4ac2dd4b1e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 348f5c082d69afbb74b1af022d193cc0018ef8032a39409eb3f99c4ac2dd4b1e
Requires -------- pangolin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libEGL.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libepoxy.so.0()(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) libpango_core.so.0()(64bit) libpango_display.so.0()(64bit) libpango_image.so.0()(64bit) libpango_opengl.so.0()(64bit) libpango_packetstream.so.0()(64bit) libpango_plot.so.0()(64bit) libpango_vars.so.0()(64bit) libpango_video.so.0()(64bit) libpango_windowing.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.13.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtinyobj.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
pangolin-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libpango_core.so.0()(64bit) libpango_display.so.0()(64bit) libpango_geometry.so.0()(64bit) libpango_glgeometry.so.0()(64bit) libpango_image.so.0()(64bit) libpango_opengl.so.0()(64bit) libpango_packetstream.so.0()(64bit) libpango_plot.so.0()(64bit) libpango_python.so.0()(64bit) libpango_scene.so.0()(64bit) libpango_tools.so.0()(64bit) libpango_vars.so.0()(64bit) libpango_video.so.0()(64bit) libpango_windowing.so.0()(64bit) libtinyobj.so.0()(64bit) pangolin(x86-64)
pangolin-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pangolin-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pangolin: libpango_core.so.0()(64bit) libpango_display.so.0()(64bit) libpango_geometry.so.0()(64bit) libpango_glgeometry.so.0()(64bit) libpango_image.so.0()(64bit) libpango_opengl.so.0()(64bit) libpango_packetstream.so.0()(64bit) libpango_plot.so.0()(64bit) libpango_python.so.0()(64bit) libpango_scene.so.0()(64bit) libpango_tools.so.0()(64bit) libpango_vars.so.0()(64bit) libpango_video.so.0()(64bit) libpango_windowing.so.0()(64bit) libtinyobj.so.0()(64bit) pangolin pangolin(x86-64)
pangolin-devel: cmake(Pangolin) cmake(pangolin) pangolin-devel pangolin-devel(x86-64)
pangolin-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libpango_core.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_display.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_geometry.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_glgeometry.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_image.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_opengl.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_packetstream.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpango_plot.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_python.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_scene.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_tools.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libpango_vars.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_video.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libpango_windowing.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libtinyobj.so.0.9.2-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit) pangolin-debuginfo pangolin-debuginfo(x86-64)
pangolin-debugsource: pangolin-debugsource pangolin-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name pangolin --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Perl, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.f...
1) I leave the date because it impacts %autorelease and I want the date to match the git tag date and not when I build the src.rpm 2) Updated with more license details, fixed the font license oops 3) Updated %files to be more terse while also keeping the SONAME match so we know when it changes
Thanks for picking up this review :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(topazus@outlook.c | |om)
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Anything else needed to move this review along?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Felix,
Is there anything needed to finalize this review?
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.f...
[fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8023383 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |davide@cavalca.name CC| |davide@cavalca.name
--- Comment #8 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- picojson, rapidxml and anonymouspro are already in Fedora; can we use them instead of the bundled ones? For the stuff we need to keep bundled, you need add bundled provides to declare them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me)
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Okay, so in this case I would delete the upstream version in %prep, BR the Fedora versions, and just copy or configure (if possible) from the Fedora packages into where pangolin expects the source to be?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.f...
I tried unbundling the picojson by removing it and copying in from picojson-devel but it caused the build to fail. I added:
Provides: bundled(picojson) = 1.3.0
Changelog:
* Use system rapidxml * Use system Anonymous Pro.ttf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8179619 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Rawhide failing is due to https://github.com/fedora-infra/mirrormanager2/issues/407 and related to the F41 release cycle.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.f...
This is still ready for a review. It's blocking getting basalt moving forward, which is blocking getting monado into the repos.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8361082 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #16 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name ---
License: MIT AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSL-1.0 AND OFL-1.1 AND zlib
I think this is invalid, the shorthand for zlib is Zlib (with the capital Z).
Provides: bundled(picojson) = 1.3.0
Can we unbunde this? If not please add a comment to explain.
%license components/pango_core/include/NaturalSort/LICENSE.md
Should this be declared as a bundled library too?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin-0.9.2-1.20240802gitv0.9.2.f...
Changelog:
* Fixed Zlib license tag * The picojson included in the source tree has been heavily modified. I've added a note based on upstream source comments. * The NaturalSort are just headers. Do we need to declare that bundled?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2062553 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2062553&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8361082 to 8395684
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8395684 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304025
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/pangolin-0.9.3-1.20250315git122bb3e....
Changelog:
- Update to latest commit to fix cmake build issues (we should likely wait for a full release, i.e. 0.9.4)
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com