[Bug 1551199] New: Review Request: nv-codec-headers - FFmpeg version of Nvidia Codec SDK headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551199
Bug ID: 1551199 Summary: Review Request: nv-codec-headers - FFmpeg version of Nvidia Codec SDK headers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: leigh123linux@googlemail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/nv-codec-headers/1/nv-code...
SRPM URL: https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/nv-codec-headers/1/nv-code...
Description: FFmpeg version of headers required to interface with Nvidias codec APIs.
Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551199
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- # To gernerate source → # To generate source
- Build error:
BUILDSTDERR: File not found : /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/nv-codec-headers-8.0.14.1-1.fc29.x86_64/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/ffnvcodec.pc
It seems you need to pass LIBDIR along with PREFIX to install it in the right place:
%build %make_build PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_lib}
%install %make_install PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_lib}
- Shouldn't the package be named nv-codec-devel?
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: nv-codec-headers : /usr/include/ffnvcodec/dynlink_cuda.h nv-codec- headers : /usr/include/ffnvcodec/dynlink_cuviddec.h nv-codec-headers : /usr/include/ffnvcodec/dynlink_loader.h nv-codec-headers : /usr/include/ffnvcodec/dynlink_nvcuvid.h nv-codec-headers : /usr/include/ffnvcodec/nvEncodeAPI.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
===== MUST items =====
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nv-codec-headers /review-nv-codec-headers/licensecheck.txt [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. [?]: 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]: 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 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]: 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 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. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: nv-codec-headers : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/ffnvcodec.pc [-]: 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. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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: nv-codec-headers-8.0.14.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm nv-codec-headers-8.0.14.1-1.fc29.src.rpm nv-codec-headers.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) FFmpeg -> MPEG nv-codec-headers.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US FFmpeg -> MPEG nv-codec-headers.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nv-codec-headers.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) FFmpeg -> MPEG nv-codec-headers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US FFmpeg -> MPEG nv-codec-headers.src:34: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ffnvcodec.pc nv-codec-headers.src: W: invalid-url Source0: nv-codec-headers-8.0.14.1.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551199
--- Comment #2 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
# To gernerate source → # To generate source
- Build error:
BUILDSTDERR: File not found : /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/nv-codec-headers-8.0.14.1-1.fc29.x86_64/usr/lib64/ pkgconfig/ffnvcodec.pc
That error is because your building a noarch package on 64bit O/S, you need to pass --target=noarch
It seems you need to pass LIBDIR along with PREFIX to install it in the right place:
Thanks, that made me question is libdir was even the correct directory for a noarch package. Seems that /usr/share/pkgconfig is the correct place
- Shouldn't the package be named nv-codec-devel?
There are other packages that use -headers in the naming, opencl-headers and kernel-headers for example.
I have updated the spec and srpm in the initial post.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551199
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 #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551199
--- Comment #4 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- Thank you for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551199
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nv-codec-headers
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com