https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5089
--- Comment #4 from leigh scott <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> * The library `libheif` is distributed under the terms of the GNU Lesser
> General Public License.
> * The sample applications are distributed under the terms of the MIT License.
>
> So LGPLv3+ and MIT, not GPLv3.
>
My bad, fixed.
> - Don't glob the major soname version to avoid unintentional soname bump:
>
> %{_libdir}/libheif.so.1*
fixed.
>
> - Own this:
>
> %{_includedir}/%{name}
I already own it.
%{_includedir}/*
$ rpm -qlp
/home/leigh/development/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libheif-devel-1.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm
/usr/include/libheif
/usr/include/libheif/heif.h
/usr/include/libheif/heif_cxx.h
/usr/include/libheif/heif_plugin.h
/usr/include/libheif/heif_version.h
/usr/lib64/libheif.so
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libheif.pc
>
>
>
> I'd like to comaintain this if possible as it will support AVIF in the
> future.
>
Sure :cool:
>
>
> 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.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3) GNU Lesser General
> Public License", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
> "Revised" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)",
> "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "FSF Unlimited License
> (with Retention)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 30 files have unknown license.
> Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libheif
> /review-libheif/licensecheck.txt
> [x: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/thumbnailers(gdk-
> pixbuf2, libgsf, librsvg2, ffmpegthumbnailer)
> [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.
> [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.
> [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [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 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.
> [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 libheif-
> debuginfo , libheif-debugsource
> [?]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
> [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: libheif-1.3.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> libheif-devel-1.3.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> libheif-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> libheif-debugsource-1.3.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
> libheif-1.3.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
> libheif.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heif-convert
> libheif.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heif-enc
> libheif.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heif-info
> libheif.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary heif-thumbnailer
> libheif-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug._______________________________________________
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
