https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302351 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Few remarks. * Quick question - should these two libraries go to the main mpv package? Looks very generic to me. ``` %dir %{_libdir}/mpv/ %dir %{_sysconfdir}/mpv/scripts ``` Not a blocker - but please in the meantime discuss this thins with mpv maintainer. * Also it looks like your SPEC-file is different with the one from SRPM-file. Please take a look at this. * More worse issue is lots of "undefined-non-weak-symbol" rpmlint messages. Should the library be linked against mpv-libs? Apart from that I don't see any other issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Unversioned .so files placed in a main package since it's a plugin library. [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 (MIT). [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed (no subpackages). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. See my comment above. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Again see my comment above. [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 does not have a desktop file. Not a GUI app. [-]: No development files. [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 doe not contains systemd file(s). [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]: 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 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 3680 bytes in 1 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). [?]: i did not chec if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (1.1). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify because upstream does not publish signatures. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: No tests. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mpv-mpris-1.1-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm mpv-mpris-debuginfo-1.1-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm mpv-mpris-debugsource-1.1-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm mpv-mpris-1.1-2.fc41.src.rpm ========================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpanbdolh8')] checks: 32, packages: 4 mpv-mpris.src: E: spelling-error ('playerctl', '%description -l en_US playerctl -> player') mpv-mpris.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('playerctl', '%description -l en_US playerctl -> player') ==================================================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 17 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.3 s ===================================================================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mpv-mpris-debuginfo-1.1-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm ========================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpm7ksyaxy')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ===================================================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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-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 checks: 32, packages: 3 mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so /lib64/libgobject-2.0.so.0 mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so mpv_get_property_string (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so) mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so mpv_observe_property (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so) mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so mpv_wait_event (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so) mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so mpv_get_property (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so) mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so mpv_free (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so) mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so mpv_set_wakeup_callback (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so) mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so mpv_set_property (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so) mpv-mpris.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so mpv_command_async (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so) mpv-mpris.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('playerctl', '%description -l en_US playerctl -> player') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings, 14 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- mpv-mpris: /etc/mpv/scripts/mpris.so mpv-mpris: /usr/lib64/mpv/mpris.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hoyon/mpv-mpris/archive/1.1/mpv-mpris-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 71008aa181bccf4bc7b2b5b9673e9993b1d1f5b7e2c189dc3724ab23ef1f6ebb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 71008aa181bccf4bc7b2b5b9673e9993b1d1f5b7e2c189dc3724ab23ef1f6ebb Requires -------- mpv-mpris (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libavformat.so.60()(64bit) libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) mpv rtld(GNU_HASH) mpv-mpris-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mpv-mpris-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mpv-mpris: mpv-mpris mpv-mpris(x86-64) mpv-mpris-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mpv-mpris-debuginfo mpv-mpris-debuginfo(x86-64) mpv-mpris-debugsource: mpv-mpris-debugsource mpv-mpris-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2302351-mpv-mpris/srpm/mpv-mpris.spec 2024-08-08 21:18:56.237062900 +0200 +++ /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2302351-mpv-mpris/srpm-unpacked/mpv-mpris.spec 2024-02-04 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ Name: mpv-mpris Version: 1.1 -Release: 3%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: MPRIS plugin for mpv @@ -44,7 +44,4 @@ %changelog -* Fri Aug 02 2024 RPM Fusion Release Engineering <sergiomb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.1-3 -- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Mass_Rebuild - * Sun Feb 04 2024 RPM Fusion Release Engineering <sergiomb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.1-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Mass_Rebuild Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2302351 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Perl, Java, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302351 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202302351%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
