[Bug 2323527] New: Review Request: obs-studio-plugin-vaapi - OBS Studio GStreamer VAAPI plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323527
Bug ID: 2323527 Summary: Review Request: obs-studio-plugin-vaapi - OBS Studio GStreamer VAAPI plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: priv.luk@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://luk1337.fedorapeople.org/review/obs-studio-plugin-vaapi.spec SRPM URL: https://luk1337.fedorapeople.org/review/obs-studio-plugin-vaapi-0.4.2-1.fc41... Description: OBS Studio GStreamer VAAPI plugin Fedora Account System Username: luk1337
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323527
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/fzwoch/o | |bs-vaapi
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8205996 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0'. 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=2323527
Łukasz Patron priv.luk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Łukasz Patron priv.luk@gmail.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323527
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2055376 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2055376&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8205996 to 8205999
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323527
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8205999 (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=2323527
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |asn@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323527
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/obs-studio-plugin-vaapi/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3576 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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.
===== 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323527
Łukasz Patron priv.luk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |asn@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323527
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/obs-studio-plugin-vaapi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323527
Łukasz Patron priv.luk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |COMPLETED Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-11-08 13:34:18
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com