https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
Bug ID: 2161112 Summary: Review Request: libopenshot-audio - Audio library used by OpenShot Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngompa13@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libopenshot-audio.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libopenshot-audio-0.3.0-2.fc37.sr... Description: OpenShot Audio Library (libopenshot-audio) is an open-source project based on JUCE, and enables high-quality audio editing and playback for libopenshot.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |2161113
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161113 [Bug 2161113] Review Request: libopenshot - Library for creating and editing videos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |davide@cavalca.name
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Initial notes: - the bundled provides should be updated to match the corresponding Fedora packages (e.g. s/libFLAC/flac/) - the -devel package has an empty %doc entry - maybe move openshot-audio-demo to its own package? usually -devel is just headers/libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #1)
Initial notes:
- the bundled provides should be updated to match the corresponding Fedora
packages (e.g. s/libFLAC/flac/)
- the -devel package has an empty %doc entry
- maybe move openshot-audio-demo to its own package? usually -devel is just
headers/libraries
Fixed. Updated packages in-place.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5238029 (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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hobbes1069@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |hobbes1069@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Technically it fails the ExcludeArch part, but there's not much we can do about it so...
*** 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "ISC License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 3-Clause License", "zlib License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 122 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora- review/2161112-libopenshot-audio/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %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. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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). [?]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: libopenshot-audio-0.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm libopenshot-audio-devel-0.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm libopenshot-audio-demo-0.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm libopenshot-audio-debuginfo-0.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm libopenshot-audio-debugsource-0.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm libopenshot-audio-0.3.0-2.fc38.src.rpm ============================================================================================================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp55bkzf2j')] checks: 31, packages: 6
============================================================================= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s ============================================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libopenshot-audio-demo-debuginfo-0.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm libopenshot-audio-debuginfo-0.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================================================================================================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmph2zo7phv')] checks: 31, packages: 2
============================================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================================================
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: 6
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenShot/libopenshot-audio/archive/v0.3.0/libopenshot-aud... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 007ba6ee812a58506341dd66055dba575b3907e5274a0e7416f99c2fbb80021c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 007ba6ee812a58506341dd66055dba575b3907e5274a0e7416f99c2fbb80021c
Requires -------- libopenshot-audio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) 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) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libopenshot-audio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libopenshot-audio(x86-64) libopenshot-audio.so.9()(64bit)
libopenshot-audio-demo (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) libopenshot-audio(x86-64) libopenshot-audio.so.9()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libopenshot-audio-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libopenshot-audio-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- libopenshot-audio: bundled(JUCE) bundled(flac) bundled(libvorbis) libopenshot-audio libopenshot-audio(x86-64) libopenshot-audio.so.9()(64bit)
libopenshot-audio-devel: cmake(OpenShotAudio) cmake(openshotaudio) libopenshot-audio-devel libopenshot-audio-devel(x86-64)
libopenshot-audio-demo: libopenshot-audio-demo libopenshot-audio-demo(x86-64)
libopenshot-audio-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libopenshot-audio-debuginfo libopenshot-audio-debuginfo(x86-64) libopenshot-audio.so.0.3.0-0.3.0-2.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
libopenshot-audio-debugsource: libopenshot-audio-debugsource libopenshot-audio-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2161112 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, R, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libopenshot-audio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-11bb7b880d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-11bb7b880d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2295b35268 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2295b35268
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-11bb7b880d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-11bb7b880d
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=2161112
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2295b35268 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-2295b35268 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2295b35268
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=2161112
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-282158d26e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-282158d26e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-282158d26e
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=2161112
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-02-06 01:00:19
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-11bb7b880d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-282158d26e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161112
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2295b35268 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com