[Bug 1848758] New: Review Request: libsoundio - C library for cross-platform real-time audio input and output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
Bug ID: 1848758 Summary: Review Request: libsoundio - C library for cross-platform real-time audio input and output Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jskarvad@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libsoundio/libsoundio.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libsoundio/libsoundio-2.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: C library providing cross-platform audio input and output. The API is suitable for real-time software such as digital audio workstations as well as consumer software such as music players. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andymenderunix@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Name: libsoundio Version: 2.0.0 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: C library for cross-platform real-time audio input and output License: MIT URL: http://libsound.io/ Source0: http://github.com/andrewrk/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%... BuildRequires: gcc, cmake, alsa-lib-devel, jack-audio-connection-kit-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel BuildRequires: doxygen, coreutils
I think the BuildRequires should be sorted alphabetically and listed on separate lines. Also, I ran the rpm build via mock and it works, but when running it directly on a Fedora 32 host, I see this in the tests:
Assertion '!m->thread || !pa_thread_is_running(m->thread) || !in_worker(m) || pa_atomic_load(&m->in_once_unlocked)' failed at pulse/thread-mainloop.c:179, function pa_threaded_mainloop_lock(). Aborting. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PZrqMa: line 34: 13190 Aborted (core dumped) ./overflow error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PZrqMa (%check)
RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PZrqMa (%check)
I would check via either COPR and/or Koji to see whether this builds cleanly on all supported platforms.
PS I'm not an official Fedora packager yet so this is just courtesy feedback :).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- I think doc subpackage should be architecture independent. Is there reason, why it is platform specific?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- And it seems utilities in bin should be independent from library itself, according to Packaging Guidelines [1]. Are those tools required by the library? Are they useful standalone?
1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_libraries_and_ap...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
Anna Khaitovich akhaitov@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |akhaitov@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |akhaitov@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #4 from Anna Khaitovich akhaitov@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
===== 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", "Expat License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/akhaitov/1848758-libsoundio/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. [!]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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: 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 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: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1515520 bytes in /usr/share [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: libsoundio-2.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libsoundio-devel-2.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libsoundio-doc-2.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libsoundio-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libsoundio-debugsource-2.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm libsoundio-2.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm libsoundio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sio_list_devices libsoundio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sio_microphone libsoundio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sio_record libsoundio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sio_sine libsoundio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsoundio-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- http://github.com/andrewrk/libsoundio/archive/2.0.0/libsoundio-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 67a8fc1c9bef2b3704381bfb3fb3ce99e3952bc4fea2817729a7180fddf4a71e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67a8fc1c9bef2b3704381bfb3fb3ce99e3952bc4fea2817729a7180fddf4a71e
Requires -------- libsoundio (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) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libsoundio.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libsoundio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsoundio(x86-64) libsoundio.so.2()(64bit)
libsoundio-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsoundio
libsoundio-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libsoundio-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- libsoundio: libsoundio libsoundio(x86-64) libsoundio.so.2()(64bit)
libsoundio-devel: libsoundio-devel libsoundio-devel(x86-64)
libsoundio-doc: libsoundio-doc libsoundio-doc(x86-64)
libsoundio-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsoundio-debuginfo libsoundio-debuginfo(x86-64)
libsoundio-debugsource: libsoundio-debugsource libsoundio-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1848758 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Thanks all, new versions: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libsoundio/libsoundio.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libsoundio/libsoundio-2.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
Anna Khaitovich akhaitov@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsoundio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2020-06-24 14:15:55
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-64b1da05a8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-64b1da05a8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-4893c0fb69 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4893c0fb69
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-4893c0fb69 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-4893c0fb69 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4893c0fb69
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=1848758
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-64b1da05a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-64b1da05a8 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-64b1da05a8
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=1848758
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-64b1da05a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-4893c0fb69 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com