[Bug 2276294] New: Review Request: tinygltf - Header only C++11 tiny glTF 2.0 library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294

            Bug ID: 2276294
           Summary: Review Request: tinygltf - Header only C++11 tiny glTF
                    2.0 library
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
          Reporter: davide(a)cavalca.name
        QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tinygltf/tinygltf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/tinygltf/tinygltf-2.8.21-1.fc41....

Description:
TinyGLTF is a header only C++11 glTF 2.0 library.

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2276294] Review Request: tinygltf - Header only C++11 tiny glTF 2.0 library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294



--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca <davide(a)cavalca.name&gt; ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=116688679


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2276294] Review Request: tinygltf - Header only C++11 tiny glTF 2.0 library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294

Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jonathansteffan(a)gmail.com
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
           Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org    |jonathansteffan(a)gmail.com
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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", "MIT License", "Boost
Software License
     1.0 and/or MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 54 files have
unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jon/Reviews/tinygltf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 12315 bytes in 1 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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).
[xdg]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     tinygltf-devel , tinygltf-examples
[?]: 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.
[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]: 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tinygltf-devel-2.8.21-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-examples-2.8.21-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-debugsource-2.8.21-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          tinygltf-2.8.21-1.fc41.src.rpm
=============================================== rpmlint session starts
===============================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp677kyb34')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

tinygltf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tinygltf_loader_example
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
========= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 14
filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==========




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: tinygltf-examples-debuginfo-2.8.21-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
=============================================== rpmlint session starts
===============================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsbgh5qbn')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5
filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==========





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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: 32, packages: 4

tinygltf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tinygltf_loader_example
tinygltf-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 16 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/syoyo/tinygltf/archive/v2.8.21/tinygltf-2.8.21.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
e567257d7addde58b0a483832cbaa5dd8f15e5bcaee6f023831e215d1a2c0502
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e567257d7addde58b0a483832cbaa5dd8f15e5bcaee6f023831e215d1a2c0502


Requires
--------
tinygltf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

tinygltf-examples (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)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

tinygltf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
tinygltf-devel:
    tinygltf-devel
    tinygltf-devel(x86-64)
    tinygltf-static

tinygltf-examples:
    tinygltf-examples
    tinygltf-examples(x86-64)

tinygltf-debugsource:
    tinygltf-debugsource
    tinygltf-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n tinygltf-2.8.21-1.fc41.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, Python, Perl, Java,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2276294] Review Request: tinygltf - Header only C++11 tiny glTF 2.0 library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294



--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
[!]: 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", "Boost
Software License
     1.0 and/or MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 54 files have
unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in

BSD-3-Clause for cpplint

The other licenses seem to fall to the tests and you've patched inline to use
system libs.

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake

cmake-filesystem

[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

What about deps/cpplint.py?

[!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.

What about tools/windows/premake5.exe?

[xdg]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     tinygltf-devel , tinygltf-examples

Auto-complete fail, this is good.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276294

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...