https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Bug ID: 1826034 Summary: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alexjnewt@fastmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/cubeb.spec SRPM URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/cubeb-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc31.src.... Description: A cross platform audio library Fedora Account System Username: mystro256
Notes: Upstream's newest version is 0.2, which is pretty old (released in 2012). I've decided to take a git snapshot as the development branch is very active.
As well, right now two packages bundle cubeb: firefox and dolphin-emu. I maintain dolphin-emu, but I hope this can open a means to unbundle cubeb from firefox as well if this is practical. See RHBZ#1825485. If any firefox maintainers see this review requests, please don't hesistate to comment or request co-maintainership.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Red Hat Bugzilla 1825485 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: <main |Review Request: cubeb - A |package name here> - <short |cross platform audio |summary here> |library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Understood. I will proceed with the new package; I've linked the new review request bug as FYI.
After cubeb is accepted and built in rawhide, I'll try to mock something up and make a pull request if I can build firefox against the shared cubeb.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #1)
Understood. I will proceed with the new package; I've linked the new review request bug as FYI.
After cubeb is accepted and built in rawhide, I'll try to mock something up and make a pull request if I can build firefox against the shared cubeb.
Sorry I posted in this the wrong bug see the linked firefox related bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Going through the automated fedora-review result right now, but re: the licenses -- looks like sanitizers-cmake is only used as part of the build process, so I'm not sure we need to list its license in the RPM metadata (though it being bundled as a source makes the issue a bit muddled; normally build dependencies are pulled in as a BuildRequires). You are (and cubeb is) using it the way sanitizers-cmake upstream intended though -- per https://github.com/arsenm/sanitizers-cmake -- so it's probably fine this way for now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Looks mostly OK, I can approve once the license issue is clarified (see the review below). Attaching the licensecheck.txt that fedora-review produces.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== Issues ===== [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Ignore Expat - the license checker somehow misidentifies the MIT-licensed files in sanitizers-cmake.
*but* - The Android files should probably be removed, or you need to add ASL 2.0 to the list of licenses - Some files are actually BSD-licensed (add BSD to the list of licenses) - The files with unknown license presumably fall under the project's ISC license
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "Expat License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/licensecheck.txt
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Might be worth asking upstream to also declare some files are ASL 2.0 and BSD licensed and include those license files in their repo
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Not a review blocker, but from looking at .gitmodules googletest is needed to run tests -- might be nice to include it and enable tests once this package is in Fedora
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "Expat License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/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. [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. A bit surprised RPM automatically picks up a dependency on cmake-filesystem for -devel for directory ownership, nice. [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. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: %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]: 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: cubeb-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-devel-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-debuginfo-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-debugsource-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.src.rpm cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cubeb-test 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cubeb-debuginfo-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-devel-debuginfo-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- cubeb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> cubeb.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cubeb-test cubeb-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> cubeb-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/arsenm/sanitizers-cmake/archive/aab6948fa863bc1cbe5d0850b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9f5b073625375322236a94ce8d2d803cdedad321c91e63845f487b9ebfb2c433 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f5b073625375322236a94ce8d2d803cdedad321c91e63845f487b9ebfb2c433 https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb/archive/9caa5b113a2a4faef8bd31894fc2d762b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6c440aa0aa454a747bd5b8adb11be891911399ab1b4a6d64d83bcd3bcd73b17f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6c440aa0aa454a747bd5b8adb11be891911399ab1b4a6d64d83bcd3bcd73b17f
Requires -------- cubeb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
cubeb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) cubeb(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcubeb.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
cubeb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cubeb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- cubeb: cubeb cubeb(x86-64) libcubeb.so.0()(64bit)
cubeb-devel: cmake(cubeb) cubeb-devel cubeb-devel(x86-64)
cubeb-debuginfo: cubeb-debuginfo cubeb-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id)
cubeb-debugsource: cubeb-debugsource cubeb-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1826034 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Created attachment 1681677 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1681677&action=edit Automated license check result
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #7 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #4)
Going through the automated fedora-review result right now, but re: the licenses -- looks like sanitizers-cmake is only used as part of the build process, so I'm not sure we need to list its license in the RPM metadata (though it being bundled as a source makes the issue a bit muddled; normally build dependencies are pulled in as a BuildRequires). You are (and cubeb is) using it the way sanitizers-cmake upstream intended though -- per https://github.com/arsenm/sanitizers-cmake -- so it's probably fine this way for now.
Indeed. It's MIT, so there's no need to provide a license with it, but since it's a build script (not distributed with binaries) and the license it's still available in the sources, it should be okay as-is.
(In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #5)
... [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Ignore Expat - the license checker somehow misidentifies theMIT-licensed files in sanitizers-cmake.
*but* - The Android files should probably be removed, or you need to add ASL2.0 to the list of licenses - Some files are actually BSD-licensed (add BSD to the list of licenses) - The files with unknown license presumably fall under the project's ISC license
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "Expat License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/licensecheck.txt
Sure, I can delete the android files in %prep. I usually do this, but I must have missed it. I'll add BSD too.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Might be worth asking upstream to also declare some files are ASL 2.0and BSD licensed and include those license files in their repo
Understood, but this is a common practice I find. Usually, the project license, or "assumed" license, is included and any other licenses are declared in the file. I find most open-source projects will especially skip distributing weak copyleft licenses if it makes up a minor percentage of the code.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Not a review blocker, but from looking at .gitmodules googletest isneeded to run tests -- might be nice to include it and enable tests once this package is in Fedora
For sure, I haven't had time to test this, but it's definitely a "nice to have" after I start building it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #8 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- New files uploaded: Spec URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/cubeb.spec SRPM URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/cubeb-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc31.src....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Looks great. There's a typo in the new changelog entry though:
Add breakdown for a few files not licensed BSD
Since most of the files are ISC and MIT licensed, I think you meant
Add breakdown for a few BSD-licensed files
(without the *not*)
APPROVED
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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", "ISC License", "Expat License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: cubeb-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-devel-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-debuginfo-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-debugsource-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.src.rpm cubeb.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cubeb-test cubeb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cubeb-debuginfo-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-devel-debuginfo-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cubeb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- cubeb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cubeb-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cubeb-test cubeb-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> cubeb-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> cubeb.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cubeb.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/arsenm/sanitizers-cmake/archive/aab6948fa863bc1cbe5d0850b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9f5b073625375322236a94ce8d2d803cdedad321c91e63845f487b9ebfb2c433 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f5b073625375322236a94ce8d2d803cdedad321c91e63845f487b9ebfb2c433 https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb/archive/9caa5b113a2a4faef8bd31894fc2d762b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6c440aa0aa454a747bd5b8adb11be891911399ab1b4a6d64d83bcd3bcd73b17f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6c440aa0aa454a747bd5b8adb11be891911399ab1b4a6d64d83bcd3bcd73b17f
Requires -------- cubeb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
cubeb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) cubeb(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcubeb.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
cubeb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cubeb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- cubeb: cubeb cubeb(x86-64) libcubeb.so.0()(64bit)
cubeb-devel: cmake(cubeb) cubeb-devel cubeb-devel(x86-64)
cubeb-debuginfo: cubeb-debuginfo cubeb-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id)
cubeb-debugsource: cubeb-debugsource cubeb-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1826034 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Java, PHP, Python, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Ah yes thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cubeb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
--- Comment #12 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Thanks Gwyn!
This has been pushed to rawhide, update for f32 incoming.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 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-f7fb71a093 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093
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=1826034
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-05-08 02:44:15
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com