[Bug 2239328] New: Review Request: obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture - OBS plugin for Vulkan/OpenGL game capture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
Bug ID: 2239328 Summary: Review Request: obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture - OBS plugin for Vulkan/OpenGL game capture 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/obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-1.4.2...
Description: OBS plugin for Vulkan/OpenGL game capture.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |2218117 (MultimediaSIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218117 [Bug 2218117] Tracker for multimedia-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |davide@cavalca.name CC| |davide@cavalca.name Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "zlib License". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2239328-obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vulkan/implicit_layer.d, /usr/share/obs/obs-plugins, /usr/share/vulkan, /usr/share/obs [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 1734 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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: 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: obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-1.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debuginfo-1.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debugsource-1.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-1.4.2-1.fc40.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/tmpzxan9ckl')] checks: 31, packages: 4
obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_obs_vkcapture.so obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libobs_glcapture.so obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obs-gamecapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obs-glcapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obs-vkcapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/bin/obs-vkcapture /usr/bin/obs-glcapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary ======= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =======
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debuginfo-1.4.2-1.fc40.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/tmpku79zmio')] checks: 31, packages: 1
======= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =======
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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 checks: 31, packages: 3
obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_obs_vkcapture.so obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libobs_glcapture.so obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obs-gamecapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obs-glcapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obs-vkcapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/bin/obs-vkcapture /usr/bin/obs-glcapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_obs_vkcapture.so obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture: /usr/lib64/libobs_glcapture.so obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture: /usr/lib64/obs-plugins/linux-vkcapture.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nowrep/obs-vkcapture/archive/v1.4.2/obs-vkcapture-1.4.2.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e61fa988225203d3b342650670d388b15d1fb91b6e1a17f67e7b90cb35b0ac68 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e61fa988225203d3b342650670d388b15d1fb91b6e1a17f67e7b90cb35b0ac68
Requires -------- obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libEGL.so.1()(64bit) libGL.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libobs.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture: libVkLayer_obs_vkcapture.so()(64bit) libobs_glcapture.so()(64bit) obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture(x86-64) obs-vkcapture obs-vkcapture(x86-64)
obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libVkLayer_obs_vkcapture.so-1.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libobs_glcapture.so-1.4.2-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debuginfo obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debuginfo(x86-64)
obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debugsource: obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debugsource obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2239328 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Java, Python, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- [!]: 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, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "zlib License". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2239328-obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture/licensecheck.txt
This needs fixing, the license field needs to include zlib for src/elfhacks.h (and, possibly, a bundled provides declaration for it).
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vulkan/implicit_layer.d, /usr/share/obs/obs-plugins, /usr/share/vulkan, /usr/share/obs
Are we missing some Requires for these?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- These are taken care of now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- APPROVED, thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/obs-studio-plugin-vkcapture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c890f01fd7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c890f01fd7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c890f01fd7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c890f01fd7
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-11e8419e62 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-11e8419e62
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-11e8419e62 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-11e8419e62 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-11e8419e62
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=2239328
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6af4070677 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-2023-6af4070677 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6af4070677
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=2239328
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c890f01fd7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 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-c890f01fd7 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c890f01fd7
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=2239328
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-09-25 01:43:03
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-11e8419e62 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6af4070677 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239328
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c890f01fd7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com