https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
Bug ID: 2316575 Summary: Review Request: SDL3 - Cross-platform multimedia library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngompa13@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL3.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL3-3.1.3-1.fc40.src.rpm
Description: Simple DirectMedia Layer (SDL) is a cross-platform multimedia library designed to provide fast access to the graphics frame buffer and audio device.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2316576
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316576 [Bug 2316576] Review Request: sdl2-compat - SDL 2.0 runtime compatibility library using SDL 3.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |davide@cavalca.name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |http://www.libsdl.org/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8110338 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file SDL_copying.h is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Package has .a files: SDL3-devel, SDL3-static. Does not provide -static: SDL3-devel. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-...
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=2316575
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #2 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- I think src/hidapi includes a vendored copy of hidapi, so that should be declared.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file SDL_copying.h is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: SDL3-devel, SDL3-static. Does not provide -static: SDL3-devel. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [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. [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", "zlib License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "mit_whatever", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or mit_whatever", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", "CMU License", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "Khronos License and/or zlib License", "MIT License and/or zlib License", "Khronos License and/or MIT License", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0", "Khronos License", "zlib License [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "Public domain and/or zlib License", "NTP License and/or zlib License", "Public domain", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant". 671 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2316575-SDL3/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. [!]: 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. [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. [-]: 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 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]: 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 5551 bytes in 5 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL3-static [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. [!]: 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: SDL3-3.1.3-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm SDL3-devel-3.1.3-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm SDL3-static-3.1.3-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm SDL3-3.1.3-1.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/tmpxvgywv_1')] checks: 32, packages: 4
SDL3-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libSDL3_test.a SDL3-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libSDL3.a SDL3-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL3.spec:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name} SDL3.spec:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 20 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: SDL3-debuginfo-3.1.3-1.fc42.x86_64.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/tmpbav7w5ka')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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
SDL3-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libSDL3.a SDL3-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libSDL3_test.a SDL3-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 22 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.9 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/releases/download/preview-3.1.3/SDL3-3.1.3... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 54041ffc30aa1ad6b8c32a41bdaa3059fc9997becbe23e412a4c718524c3f584 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 54041ffc30aa1ad6b8c32a41bdaa3059fc9997becbe23e412a4c718524c3f584
Requires -------- SDL3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (libdecor-0.so.0()(64bit) if libwayland-client) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
SDL3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config SDL3(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libSDL3.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(gl) pkgconfig(glu) pkgconfig(x11) pkgconfig(xproto)
SDL3-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SDL3-devel(x86-64)
Provides -------- SDL3: SDL3 SDL3(x86-64) libSDL3.so.0()(64bit) libSDL3.so.0(SDL3_0.0.0)(64bit)
SDL3-devel: SDL3-devel SDL3-devel(x86-64) cmake(SDL3) cmake(sdl3) pkgconfig(sdl3)
SDL3-static: SDL3-static SDL3-static(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2316575 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, R, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
As mentioned above, hidapi needs to be declared
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL3-static
I think we need this?
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Sorry I typoed this one, I meant to flag that we're missing %check, and this has a test suite so we should probably run it if we can
SDL3-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libSDL3_test.a
I don't think we should ship this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4)
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
As mentioned above, hidapi needs to be declared
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL3-static
I think we need this?
SDL3-static -> SDL3-devel -> SDL3, so I think that's fine.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Sorry I typoed this one, I meant to flag that we're missing %check, and this has a test suite so we should probably run it if we can
The test suite requires graphics to work, it's currently not straightforward to run.
SDL3-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libSDL3_test.a
I don't think we should ship this
This can be used by others, but I did split it out into its own subpackage.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4)
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
As mentioned above, hidapi needs to be declared
I've rectified this with a new version of the spec including 3.1.6.
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL3.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc41.src.rpm 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=2316575
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2060858 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2060858&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8110338 to 8335090
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8335090 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file SDL_copying.h is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Package has .a files: SDL3-static, SDL3-test. Illegal package name: SDL3-test. Does not provide -static: SDL3-test. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-...
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=2316575
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #11 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Approved, thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/SDL3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6bb2476baf (mingw-SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc41 and SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6bb2476baf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-2359c79d49 (mingw-SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc40 and SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2359c79d49
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6bb2476baf has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-6bb2476baf *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6bb2476baf
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=2316575
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-2359c79d49 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-2359c79d49 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2359c79d49
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=2316575
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-12-12 01:34:03
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6bb2476baf (mingw-SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc41 and SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316575
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-2359c79d49 (mingw-SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc40 and SDL3-3.1.6-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com