[Bug 1744282] New: Review Request: libspng - Simple, modern libpng alternativeSimple, modern libpng alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
Bug ID: 1744282 Summary: Review Request: libspng - Simple, modern libpng alternativeSimple, modern libpng alternative Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zebob.m@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libspng.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libspng-0.5.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: Libspng is a C library for reading and writing Portable Network Graphics (PNG) format files with a focus on security and ease of use. Libspng is an alternative to libpng, the projects are separate and the APIs are not compatible.Libspng is a C library for reading and writing Portable Network Graphics (PNG) format files with a focus on security and ease of use. Libspng is an alternative to libpng, the projects are separate and the APIs are not compatible.
Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37210221
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |quantum.analyst@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- You don't need Requires:pkgconfig on the devel subpackage; it's pulled in by a file trigger.
Tests are not actually run. It looks like you need to pass -Ddev_build=true to enable them, and install libpng too.
There may be SSE2 code enabled by default, so this might not be compatible with our i686. I did not investigate this too deeply.
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", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 245 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1744282-libspng/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. [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. [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 40960 bytes in 11 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libspng [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: libspng-0.5.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm libspng-devel-0.5.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm libspng-debuginfo-0.5.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm libspng-debugsource-0.5.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm libspng-0.5.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libspng-debuginfo-0.5.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/randy408/libspng/archive/v0.5.0/libspng-0.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ebd22804cf3fd82c9c3fbdeb4995b327db766d5b78b9d6a0175766359108a39e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ebd22804cf3fd82c9c3fbdeb4995b327db766d5b78b9d6a0175766359108a39e
Requires -------- libspng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libspng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libspng(x86-64) libspng.so.0.5.0()(64bit) pkgconfig pkgconfig(zlib)
libspng-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libspng-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- libspng: libspng libspng(x86-64) libspng.so.0.5.0()(64bit)
libspng-devel: libspng-devel libspng-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(spng)
libspng-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libspng-debuginfo libspng-debuginfo(x86-64)
libspng-debugsource: libspng-debugsource libspng-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1744282 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Python, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libspng.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libspng-0.5.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review.
I've got some big endian issues I'm trying to solve with upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libspng.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libspng-0.5.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Big endian problems solved, the tests pass: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37300804
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libspng
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-81dc68aafe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-81dc68aafe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libspng-0.5.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-81dc68aafe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-09-14 00:07:22
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libspng-0.5.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744282
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libspng-0.5.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com