https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Bug ID: 2242058 Summary: Review Request: gfxstream - Graphics Streaming Kit Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcandre.lureau@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.... Description: Graphics Streaming Kit is a code generator that makes it easier to serialize and forward graphics API calls from one place to another. Fedora Account System Username: elmarco
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2241701
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701 [Bug 2241701] Review Request: aemu - Android emulator libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058 Bug 2242058 depends on bug 2241701, which changed state.
Bug 2241701 Summary: Review Request: aemu - Android emulator libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #1 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec SRPM URL: gfxstream-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #2 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Hi @benson_muite, would you be willing to review this package as well? thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai |fedora-review? |lplus.org) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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 [ ]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [ ]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "Khronos License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or Khronos License and/or MIT License", "MIT Open Group variant", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or MIT Open Group variant", "MIT License and/or The Unlicense", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "MIT Open Group variant and/or NTP License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* MIT License". 718 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2242058-gfxstream/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3981 bytes in 1 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: gfxstream-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.aarch64.rpm gfxstream-devel-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.aarch64.rpm gfxstream-debuginfo-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.aarch64.rpm gfxstream-debugsource-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.aarch64.rpm gfxstream-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpu38j_z7s')] checks: 31, packages: 5
gfxstream-devel.aarch64: W: summary-not-capitalized gfxstream development files gfxstream-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation gfxstream.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: gfxstream-20231004.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gfxstream-debuginfo-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.aarch64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwm67pd4s')] checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 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
gfxstream-devel.aarch64: W: summary-not-capitalized gfxstream development files gfxstream.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('virtualized', '%description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized') gfxstream-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 26 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.0 s
Requires -------- gfxstream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-host-common.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) 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) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gfxstream-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gfxstream(aarch-64) libgfxstream_backend.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(aemu_base) pkgconfig(aemu_host_common) pkgconfig(aemu_logging) pkgconfig(aemu_snapshot) pkgconfig(libdrm)
gfxstream-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gfxstream-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- gfxstream: gfxstream gfxstream(aarch-64) libgfxstream_backend.so.0()(64bit)
gfxstream-devel: gfxstream-devel gfxstream-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(gfxstream_backend)
gfxstream-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gfxstream-debuginfo gfxstream-debuginfo(aarch-64)
libgfxstream_backend.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231004git23d05703.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
gfxstream-debugsource: gfxstream-debugsource gfxstream-debugsource(aarch-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242058 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) There are a number of third party packages. Can they be removed and packaged for Fedora if not already in Fedora and are needed? If not, they should be indicated as bundled. Please also check licenses of any bundled software.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://android.googlesourc | |e.com/platform/hardware/goo | |gle/gfxstream
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6685381 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2049621
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049621 [Bug 2049621] renderdoc fails to build with Python 3.11: error: 'struct _frame' has no member named 'f_globals'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #6 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec SRPM URL: gfxstream-0.1.2^20231128git23d05703-1.fc40.src.rpm
Hi Benson,
I removed the third-party/ directory, provided a patch for upstream. common/ is still there, but the GL headers are not matching the current system ones.
Now the build depend on bug 2049621 renderdoc package. Although we could probably leave the header in this package to avoid the dependency.
I also adjusted a bit the spec.
Let me know what you think of the current iteration, thanks!!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for the updates. Waiting on renderdoc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058 Bug 2242058 depends on bug 2049621, which changed state.
Bug 2049621 Summary: renderdoc fails to build with Python 3.11: error: 'struct _frame' has no member named 'f_globals' https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049621
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2254392
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254392 [Bug 2254392] Review request: renderdoc - stand-alone graphics debugging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|2254392 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254392 [Bug 2254392] Review request: renderdoc - stand-alone graphics debugging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2254392
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254392 [Bug 2254392] Review request: renderdoc - stand-alone graphics debugging tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #8 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Hi Benson, renderdoc is back in Fedora. Successful scratch-build of gfxstream: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113386713
review+ ? thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Update urls Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream-0.1.2%5E20231128git23d05703-1.fc4...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: 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* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "Khronos License", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or Khronos License and/or MIT License", "MIT Open Group variant", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or MIT Open Group variant", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "MIT Open Group variant and/or NTP License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 441 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2242058-gfxstream/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/pkgconfig [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3981 bytes in 1 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: gfxstream-0.1.2^20231128git23d05703-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm gfxstream-devel-0.1.2^20231128git23d05703-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm gfxstream-debuginfo-0.1.2^20231128git23d05703-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm gfxstream-debugsource-0.1.2^20231128git23d05703-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm gfxstream-0.1.2^20231128git23d05703-1.fc40.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/tmprpml7ndy')] checks: 32, packages: 5
gfxstream-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized gfxstream development files gfxstream.src: E: spelling-error ('virtualized', '%description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized') gfxstream.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('virtualized', '%description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized') gfxstream-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gfxstream.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: gfxstream-20231128.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 30 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gfxstream-debuginfo-0.1.2^20231128git23d05703-1.fc40.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/tmp_h44hnlm')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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
gfxstream-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized gfxstream development files gfxstream.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('virtualized', '%description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized') gfxstream-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 26 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.5 s
Requires -------- gfxstream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-host-common.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) 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) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gfxstream-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gfxstream(x86-64) libgfxstream_backend.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(aemu_base) pkgconfig(aemu_host_common) pkgconfig(aemu_logging) pkgconfig(aemu_snapshot)
gfxstream-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gfxstream-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- gfxstream: gfxstream gfxstream(x86-64) libgfxstream_backend.so.0()(64bit)
gfxstream-devel: gfxstream-devel gfxstream-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(gfxstream_backend)
gfxstream-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gfxstream-debuginfo gfxstream-debuginfo(x86-64)
libgfxstream_backend.so.0.1.2-0.1.2^20231128git23d05703-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
gfxstream-debugsource: gfxstream-debugsource gfxstream-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242058 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Java, R, SugarActivity, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Unclear why get Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/pkgconfig b) License seems like it should be at least: MIT AND Apache-2.0 AND MIT-open-group Adding a brief license breakdown is also helpful. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ c) Builds on Aarch64 and x86_64: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113489313
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #11 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #10)
Comments: a) Unclear why get Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/pkgconfig
I added Requires: pkgconfig
b) License seems like it should be at least: MIT AND Apache-2.0 AND MIT-open-group Adding a brief license breakdown is also helpful. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
not sure what to do, the project has the same SPDX license tag: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/gfxstream/+/refs/h...
c) Builds on Aarch64 and x86_64: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113489313
ExcludeArch: %{ix86} %{power64} s390x
not sure what should else can be done...
thanks for your help
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Check the output of fedora-review, you will need to run it yourself to get the licensecheck.txt file. This has a number of other licenses for some of the included files. At the moment fedora-review-service does not generate output.
[fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2016890 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2016890&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6685381 to 7019481
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7019481 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058 Bug 2242058 depends on bug 2254392, which changed state.
Bug 2254392 Summary: Review Request: renderdoc - stand-alone graphics debugging tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254392
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #15 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Hi Benson, let me know if the last update is ok, or what you would change. Thanks!
Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream-0.1.2%5e20240221git23d05703-1.fc4...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7045558 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7045606 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7045785 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #22 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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 [ ]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [ ]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "Khronos License", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or Khronos License and/or MIT License", "MIT Open Group variant", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or MIT Open Group variant", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "MIT Open Group variant and/or NTP License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 441 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2242058-gfxstream/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/pkgconfig [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3981 bytes in 1 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: gfxstream-0.1.2^20240221git23d05703-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm gfxstream-devel-0.1.2^20240221git23d05703-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm gfxstream-debuginfo-0.1.2^20240221git23d05703-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm gfxstream-debugsource-0.1.2^20240221git23d05703-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm gfxstream-0.1.2^20240221git23d05703-1.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/tmprrr8y907')] checks: 32, packages: 5
gfxstream-devel.aarch64: W: summary-not-capitalized gfxstream development files gfxstream.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('virtualized', '%description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized') gfxstream.src: E: spelling-error ('virtualized', '%description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized') gfxstream-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation gfxstream.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: gfxstream-20240221.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 30 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.9 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gfxstream-debuginfo-0.1.2^20240221git23d05703-1.fc41.aarch64.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/tmpf4n_if3w')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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
gfxstream-devel.aarch64: W: summary-not-capitalized gfxstream development files gfxstream.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('virtualized', '%description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, visualized, actualized') gfxstream-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 27 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.3 s
Requires -------- gfxstream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-host-common.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) 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) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gfxstream-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gfxstream(aarch-64) libgfxstream_backend.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig pkgconfig(aemu_base) pkgconfig(aemu_host_common) pkgconfig(aemu_logging) pkgconfig(aemu_snapshot)
gfxstream-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
gfxstream-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- gfxstream: gfxstream gfxstream(aarch-64) libgfxstream_backend.so.0()(64bit)
gfxstream-devel: gfxstream-devel gfxstream-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(gfxstream_backend)
gfxstream-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gfxstream-debuginfo gfxstream-debuginfo(aarch-64)
libgfxstream_backend.so.0.1.2-0.1.2^20240221git23d05703-1.fc41.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
gfxstream-debugsource: gfxstream-debugsource gfxstream-debugsource(aarch-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242058 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, R, Python, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Seems ok apart from license specifications. b) Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_lice... Attaching output from license checking tool. which indicates that one needs to specify all licenses applicable to content in the packaged files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #23 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Created attachment 2018730 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2018730&action=edit License listing from fedora-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #24 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #23)
Created attachment 2018730 [details] License listing from fedora-review
# the project license declared in meson.build is "MIT OR Apache-2.0" # but it also uses some MIT licensed headers License: MIT AND Apache-2.0
# in the source package there are a number of other licenses # that are either compatible (CC-BY-4.0, Khronos, MIT-open-group) # or from scripts that are used only during the build # see the project LICENSE for a breakdown.
What should we modify?
I think we would save time if you could provide the change Benson. I am being puzzled.
Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #25 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Would need to figure out which files are actually used in the build. The license check tool checks for license information in every file included in the uploaded archive, not just the ones used in the build. Is there a good way to check which files are used in a Meson build? The LICENSE file is a dump of every license used in the repository, but it does not indicate which licenses are used in which files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #26 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #25)
Would need to figure out which files are actually used in the build. The license check tool checks for license information in every file included in the uploaded archive, not just the ones used in the build. Is there a good way to check which files are used in a Meson build? The LICENSE file is a dump of every license used in the repository, but it does not indicate which licenses are used in which files.
I dropped some files from the tarball (but review.txt does not reflect that for some reason)
GNU General Public License, Version 2 ------------------------------------- gfxstream-20240221/guest/android-emu/aemu/base/containers/Lookup.h gfxstream-20240221/guest/android-emu/android/utils/debug.c gfxstream-20240221/guest/android-emu/android/utils/debug.h
was dropped
Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant MIT Open Group variant MIT Open Group variant and/or NTP License ---------------------------------------------------------- gfxstream-20240221/host/apigen-codec-common/X11/*
Can be dropped
Khronos License ---------------
guest/ can be dropped but not include/
srpm updated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #27 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream-0.1.2%5C%5E20240226git23d05703-1....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream-0.1.2%5C%5E20240226git23d05703-1.... Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #29 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- spec: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec srpm: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream-0.1.2%5e20240226git23d05703-1.fc4...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2018872 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2018872&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7045785 to 7061179
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7061179 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #32 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. It builds. Would suggest the following as license information
# the project license declared in meson.build is "MIT OR Apache-2.0" # but it also uses some MIT licensed headers and OpenGL headers are # under the MIT-Khronos license, some files only have Apache-2.0 # license information. License: MIT AND Apache-2.0 AND MIT-Khronos-old
# in the source package there are a number of other licenses # that are (CC-BY-4.0) and not included in the # software installed by the produced rpms, # see the project LICENSE for a partial listing.
The MIT-Khronos-old is an allowed license: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ though the text is not available from SPDX website. You could add the output of the fedora-review licensecheck file as a listing of what license each file is under. There does not seem to be a simple way to indicate licenses of each component. For files without license information, assume these are MIT OR Apache-2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #2018730 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #33 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Created attachment 2019556 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2019556&action=edit Updated license listing from Fedora review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #34 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- spec: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec
updated.
Benson, do you want the licensecheck file be shipped with the SRPM ? Or inlined in the spec ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #35 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- It is upto you. If you can find a way to summarize it and inline it, that would be great, but if it is too time consuming or not possible, shipping it with the SRPM and referring to it in the spec is also fine.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #36 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- spec: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec srpm: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream-0.1.2%5e20240226git23d05703-1.fc4...
thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2021150 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2021150&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7061179 to 7136418
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7136418 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rfontana@redhat.com Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai |needinfo?(rfontana@redhat.c |lplus.org) |om)
--- Comment #39 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- It seems ok, though does not build on rawhide. Can you get it to build on rawhide?
Have asked on mailing list about the Khronos license since it is not listed on SPDX, but assume it is ok.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #40 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- spec: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream.spec srpm: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gfxstream-0.1.2%5e20240226git23d05703-1.fc4...
yeah, glm changed in rawhide, fixed thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2021214 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2021214&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7136418 to 7141469
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7141469 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT AND Apache-2.0 AND MIT-Khronos-old'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #43 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- License text is available at: https://spdx.github.io/license-list-data/MIT-Khronos-old.html but not on the regular SPDX page. Assume it is ok as it is on the allowed list.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gfxstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-bc2cee3f40 (gfxstream-0.1.2^20240226git23d05703-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bc2cee3f40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-03-16 11:05:18
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-bc2cee3f40 (gfxstream-0.1.2^20240226git23d05703-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com