https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
Bug ID: 2330823 Summary: Review Request: wivrn - OpenXR to HMD streaming application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jonathansteffan@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/wivrn.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc40/w... Description: OpenXR to HMD streaming application Fedora Account System Username: jsteffan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8351130 (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=2330823
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/wivrn.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc40/w...
Changelog:
* Add missing directory ownership
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2061555 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2061555&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8351130 to 8360881
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8360881 (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=2330823
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: wivrn - |Review Request: wivrn - An |OpenXR to HMD streaming |OpenXR streaming |application |application to a standalone | |headset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/wivrn.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc40/w...
Changelog:
* Update summary/description to latest upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2061556 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2061556&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8360881 to 8361185
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8361185 (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=2330823
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |davide@cavalca.name
--- Comment #8 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name ---
# Build features, default off %bcond_with x264
Could we patch upstream to use OpenH264 ?
License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSL-1.0 AND CECILL-C AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-BY-4.0 AND MIT-Khronos-old AND Unlicense AND zlib AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT AND OFL-1.1
I think the right identifier for zlib is Zlib (with the capital Z). Also, CC0-1.0 is normally only allowed for content. Review the blurb on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ and check whether we can fit into one of the caveouts, if not this will need a input from Legal to resolve.
%{_datarootdir}/metainfo/io.github.wivrn.wivrn.metainfo.xml
You should validate this in %check per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #8)
# Build features, default off %bcond_with x264
Could we patch upstream to use OpenH264 ?
https://github.com/WiVRn/WiVRn/issues/208
Upstream is actively engaged with this effort so we'll see if it can easily be added. We should continue forward with the package even without software encoding.
License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSL-1.0 AND CECILL-C AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-BY-4.0 AND MIT-Khronos-old AND Unlicense AND zlib AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT AND OFL-1.1
I think the right identifier for zlib is Zlib (with the capital Z). Also, CC0-1.0 is normally only allowed for content. Review the blurb on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ and check whether we can fit into one of the caveouts, if not this will need a input from Legal to resolve.
I wondered why I saw this but `licensecheck zlib` didn't complain. I've fixed Zlib. I also looked closer at glad and it's dual licensed CC0-1.0 AND Apache-2.0. I've updated this in the spec.
%{_datarootdir}/metainfo/io.github.wivrn.wivrn.metainfo.xml
You should validate this in %check per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ #_app_data_validate_usage
Resolved.
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/wivrn.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc40/w...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2061689 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2061689&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8361185 to 8364201
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8364201 (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=2330823
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |davide@cavalca.name Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- 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]: 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 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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 and/or MIT License and/or Public domain and/or SIL Open Font License and/or W3C License and/or zlib License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or Creative Commons CC0 1.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Khronos License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* zlib License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "zlib License", "MIT License and/or The Unlicense", "*No copyright* CeCILL-C License", "Khronos License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense [generated file]". 378 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2330823-wivrn/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openxr/1, /usr/share/openxr, /usr/lib/firewalld/services, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/lib/firewalld, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor [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. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 15318 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in wivrn [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: 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: wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc42.x86_64.rpm wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpvgph0p9v')] checks: 32, packages: 2
wivrn.src: E: spelling-error ('wirelessly', '%description -l en_US wirelessly -> tirelessly, wireless, relentlessly') wivrn.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wirelessly', '%description -l en_US wirelessly -> tirelessly, wireless, relentlessly') wivrn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wivrn-dashboard wivrn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wivrn-server wivrn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wivrnctl wivrn.x86_64: W: empty-%postun wivrn.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/wivrn/libmonado_wivrn.so 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.0 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files -------------------- wivrn: /usr/lib64/wivrn/libmonado_wivrn.so wivrn: /usr/lib64/wivrn/libopenxr_wivrn.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/monado/monado/-/archive/aa2b0f9f1d638becd6bb9... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d86693194417b76bd141c6f1a1adb29cd39d75059eb5f4bc5f252cc7d9db6e72 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d86693194417b76bd141c6f1a1adb29cd39d75059eb5f4bc5f252cc7d9db6e72 https://github.com/WiVRn/WiVRn/archive/v0.22/WiVRn-0.22.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e05e56f53ae7650eddbecf84a9a01decb73286a9b44e5ba29e446d9f1a958cb4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e05e56f53ae7650eddbecf84a9a01decb73286a9b44e5ba29e446d9f1a958cb4
Requires -------- wivrn (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh android-tools libGLX.so.0()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.8)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libX11-xcb.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-common.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-glib.so.1()(64bit) libavcodec.so.61()(64bit) libavcodec.so.61(LIBAVCODEC_61)(64bit) libavutil.so.59()(64bit) libavutil.so.59(LIBAVUTIL_59)(64bit) libbsd.so.0()(64bit) libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcap.so.2()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libdrm.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmonado_wivrn.so.24()(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libpipewire-0.3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(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_1.3.9)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_221)(64bit) libvulkan.so.1()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) opencomposite rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- wivrn: application() application(io.github.wivrn.wivrn.desktop) bundled(monado) libmonado_wivrn.so.24()(64bit) libopenxr_wivrn.so()(64bit) libopenxr_wivrn.so(OPENXR)(64bit) metainfo() metainfo(io.github.wivrn.wivrn.metainfo.xml) wivrn wivrn(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2330823 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Python, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #13 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openxr/1, /usr/share/openxr, /usr/lib/firewalld/services, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/lib/firewalld, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor
Looks like we're missing a few Requires here. Please fix this on import.
wivrn.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
Uh, not entirely sure what this is about, as you _do_ have a postun.
Looking good overall, so it's APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wivrn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-e3f9c6138e (wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e3f9c6138e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-12-09 02:31:48
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-e3f9c6138e (wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com