[Bug 1854281] New: Review Request: dlib - A modern C++ toolkit containing machine learning algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854281
Bug ID: 1854281 Summary: Review Request: dlib - A modern C++ toolkit containing machine learning algorithms Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/howdy/fedora-rawhide... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/howdy/fedora-rawhide... Description: Dlib is a general purpose cross-platform open source software library written in the C++ programming language. Its design is heavily influenced by ideas from
design by contract and component-based software engineering. It contains
components for dealing with networking, threads, graphical user interfaces,
data structures, linear algebra, machine learning, image processing, data
mining, XML and text parsing, numerical optimization, Bayesian networks, and
numerous other tasks. Fedora Account System Username: luya
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854281
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- This is a re-review process needed to unretire this package for howdy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854281
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we discourage globbing the major soname version, instead be more specific:
%{_libdir}/libdlib.so.19*
- Some MIT thing is shipped too, add it to the corresponding license field:
Expat License ------------- dlib-19.20/docs/python/_static/jquery.js dlib-19.20/docs/python/_static/underscore.js
- Use %global instead of %define:
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define py_setup_args --no USE_SSE4_INSTRUCTIONS
- Remove Sphinx build leftovers:
dlib-doc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.buildinfo
- The documentation subpackage should be noarch
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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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.
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", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Public domain", "NTP License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "zlib/libpng license", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication". 3726 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/dlib/review-dlib/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. [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]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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: [-]: 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 python3-dlib [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define py_setup_args --no USE_SSE4_INSTRUCTIONS [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.
===== 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 76083200 bytes in /usr/share dlib- doc-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm:76062720 See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Gui... [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: dlib-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dlib-devel-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm python3-dlib-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dlib-doc-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dlib-debuginfo-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dlib-debugsource-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dlib-19.20-1.fc33.src.rpm dlib.x86_64: W: no-documentation dlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-dlib.x86_64: W: no-documentation dlib-doc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.buildinfo 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854281
--- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- All fixed based on feeback/
Updated spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/howdy/fedora-rawhide... Updated srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/howdy/fedora-rawhide...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854281
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- You missed:
- Some MIT thing is shipped too, add it to the corresponding license field:
Expat License ------------- dlib-19.20/docs/python/_static/jquery.js dlib-19.20/docs/python/_static/underscore.js
Add it to the License: field of the doc subpackage.
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854281
--- Comment #5 from Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net --- Thank you Robert-André, I will add the missing fix in the spec/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854281
Luya Tshimbalanga luya_tfz@thefinalzone.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2021-02-05 23:14:46
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com