[Bug 2362665] New: Review Request: libtypec - A generic user space library for USB-C port management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Bug ID: 2362665 Summary: Review Request: libtypec - A generic user space library for USB-C port management Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pbrobinson@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libtypec.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libtypec-0.6.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: “libtypec” is aimed to provide a generic interface abstracting all platform complexity for user space to develop tools for efficient USB-C port management. The library can also enable development of diagnostic and debug tools to debug system issues around USB-C/USB PD topology.
FAS: pbrobinson
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132066280
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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]: 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* MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libtypec/2362665-libtypec/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/libtypec/libtypec/archive/v0.6.1/libtypec-0.6.1.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [ ]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libtypec-0.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libtypec-devel-0.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libtypec-utils-0.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libtypec-0.6.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmprfjrcdna')] checks: 32, packages: 4
libtypec-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lstypec libtypec-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary typecstatus libtypec-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ucsicontrol libtypec-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbcview 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libtypec-debuginfo-0.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libtypec-utils-debuginfo-0.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpbr5zkpuq')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 5
libtypec-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lstypec libtypec-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary typecstatus libtypec-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ucsicontrol libtypec-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbcview 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 45 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Requires -------- libtypec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libtypec-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtypec(x86-64) libtypec.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(libudev)
libtypec-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libtypec(x86-64) libtypec.so.0()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_196)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- libtypec: libtypec libtypec(x86-64) libtypec.so.0()(64bit)
libtypec-devel: libtypec-devel libtypec-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libtypec)
libtypec-utils: libtypec-utils libtypec-utils(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2362665 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Java, Perl, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Some of the software is under GPL: *No copyright* MIT License -------------------------- libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/meson.build
GNU General Public License, Version 2 ------------------------------------- libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/LICENSES/gpl-2.0.txt libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/utils/lstypec.c libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/utils/lstypec.h libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/utils/names.c libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/utils/names.h libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/utils/ucsicontrol.c
MIT License ----------- libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/LICENSES/MIT License.txt libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/README libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/debian/copyright libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/libtypec.c libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/libtypec.h libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/libtypec_dbgfs_ops.c libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/libtypec_ops.h libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/libtypec_sysfs_ops.c libtypec-0.6.1-build/libtypec-libtypec-0.6.1/utils/typecstatus.c
b) License files are available under: https://github.com/libtypec/libtypec/tree/main/LICENSES
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
--- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com --- Updated URL and license. I will work with upstream to clarify the license as I based the original on the github readme.
SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libtypec.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libtypec-0.6.1-2.fc42.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- At least one of the programs creates a GUI: https://github.com/libtypec/libtypec/blob/main/utils/usbcview.c#L360
Are desktop, appdata and icon files needed?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
--- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com ---
Are desktop, appdata and icon files needed?
Personally I don't think so, I can work with upstream to fix that for a newer release if they thing it is. I don't think that should block the review though.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Tim Lauridsen tim.lauridsen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tim.lauridsen@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Tim Lauridsen tim.lauridsen@gmail.com --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #4)
Are desktop, appdata and icon files needed?
Personally I don't think so, I can work with upstream to fix that for a newer release if they thing it is. I don't think that should block the review though.
Agree, with Peter, This is not a primary end-user GUI application there need appdata etc. to be visble Gnome Software etc. This is special purpose tools, where some of them has a gtk3 UI.
So it should be fine without IMHO.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
--- Comment #6 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #2)
Updated URL and license. I will work with upstream to clarify the license as I based the original on the github readme.
So upstream has confirmed the library is MIT and the utils are GPLv2 so I think we're fine.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com --- Hey Benson, any further details or feedback please?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|benson_muite@emailplus.org |tim.lauridsen@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Maybe faster for Tim to finish the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(tim.lauridsen@gma | |il.com)
--- Comment #9 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com --- Tim do you have time to finish the review please?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Javier Martinez Canillas javierm@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |javierm@redhat.com
--- Comment #11 from Javier Martinez Canillas javierm@redhat.com --- The package looks good to me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |javierm@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libtypec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-4ce7956cce (libtypec-0.6.1-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4ce7956cce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-4ce7956cce has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4ce7956cce *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4ce7956cce
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2362665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-07-06 01:10:43
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-4ce7956cce (libtypec-0.6.1-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com