https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2525600
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- The package is APPROVED with some recommendations. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated This is a pleasantly straightforward C/meson package with no awkward upstream choices to contend with. Weirdly, upstream development seems to be reasonably active, but the last release was five years ago. If you have any issues, the solutions may be in https://github.com/tinyalsa/tinyalsa/compare/v2.0.0...master. ===== Issues ==== - Please don’t glob over the SONAME version, as this increases the risk of undetected ABI-breaking updates. Instead of: %{_libdir}/libtinyalsa.so.* you can write: %{_libdir}/libtinyalsa.so.2{,.*} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files This is a SHOULD, not a MUST, so it doesn’t block approval, but please do change it. - The %meson_test invocation isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t manage to do anything: + /usr/bin/meson test -C redhat-linux-build -j16 --print-errorlogs No tests defined. The tests in tests/ aren’t plumbed in to the meson build system (or the CMake build system, for that matter), and it looks like they are interactive tests that require audio I/O and such, so they aren’t useful here anyway. It’s probably worth adding a spec-file comment about all of this, and perhaps optionally removing the %meson_test invocation since there are no tests for it to run. - You might consider adding: # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ExcludeArch: %{ix86} ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2525600-tinyalsa/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 or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 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 2953 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tinyalsa-devel Spurious diagnostic: this exact formulation is present. [?]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149608164 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. There aren’t any tests that %meson_test can run. It doesn’t look like there are any usable non-interactive tests anyway. See the Issues section. [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: OK: this guidance is dubious anyway, https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1449/, and the %define comes from rpmautospec macro expansion. [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. ===== 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: tinyalsa-2.0.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm tinyalsa-devel-2.0.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm tinyalsa-2.0.0-1.fc46.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp808k0evk')] checks: 32, packages: 3 tinyalsa-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tinyalsa.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/tinyalsa/LICENSE NOTICE 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 30 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tinyalsa-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgh8gue9v')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 3 tinyalsa-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tinyalsa.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/tinyalsa/LICENSE NOTICE 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 48 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tinyalsa/tinyalsa/archive/v2.0.0/tinyalsa-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 573ae0b2d3480851c1d2a12503ead2beea27f92d44ed47b74b553ba947994ef1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 573ae0b2d3480851c1d2a12503ead2beea27f92d44ed47b74b553ba947994ef1 Requires -------- tinyalsa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libtinyalsa.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tinyalsa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtinyalsa.so.2()(64bit) tinyalsa(x86-64) Provides -------- tinyalsa: libtinyalsa.so.2()(64bit) tinyalsa tinyalsa(x86-64) tinyalsa-devel: pkgconfig(tinyalsa) tinyalsa-devel tinyalsa-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2525600 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Java 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=2525600 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202525600%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
