[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-05-08 02:44:15 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #12 from Jeremy Newton --- Thanks Gwyn! This has been pushed to rawhide, update for f32 incoming. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f7fb71a093 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cubeb -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton --- Ah yes thank you! -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034
Michel Alexandre Salim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
Looks great. There's a typo in the new changelog entry though:
Add breakdown for a few files not licensed BSD
Since most of the files are ISC and MIT licensed, I think you meant
Add breakdown for a few BSD-licensed files
(without the *not*)
APPROVED
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", "ISC License", "Expat License", "BSD
3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 71 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/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.
[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 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
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #8 from Jeremy Newton --- New files uploaded: Spec URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/cubeb.spec SRPM URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/cubeb-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.fc31.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #7 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #4) > Going through the automated fedora-review result right now, but re: the > licenses -- looks like sanitizers-cmake is only used as part of the build > process, so I'm not sure we need to list its license in the RPM metadata > (though it being bundled as a source makes the issue a bit muddled; normally > build dependencies are pulled in as a BuildRequires). You are (and cubeb is) > using it the way sanitizers-cmake upstream intended though -- per > https://github.com/arsenm/sanitizers-cmake -- so it's probably fine this way > for now. Indeed. It's MIT, so there's no need to provide a license with it, but since it's a build script (not distributed with binaries) and the license it's still available in the sources, it should be okay as-is. (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #5) > ... > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Ignore Expat - the license checker somehow misidentifies the > MIT-licensed files in sanitizers-cmake. > > *but* > - The Android files should probably be removed, or you need to add ASL > 2.0 to the list of licenses > - Some files are actually BSD-licensed (add BSD to the list of licenses) > - The files with unknown license presumably fall under the project's > ISC license > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "Expat License", "Apache > License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 73 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/licensecheck.txt > Sure, I can delete the android files in %prep. I usually do this, but I must have missed it. I'll add BSD too. > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > Might be worth asking upstream to also declare some files are ASL 2.0 > and BSD licensed and include those license files in their repo Understood, but this is a common practice I find. Usually, the project license, or "assumed" license, is included and any other licenses are declared in the file. I find most open-source projects will especially skip distributing weak copyleft licenses if it makes up a minor percentage of the code. > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > Not a review blocker, but from looking at .gitmodules googletest is > needed to run tests -- might be nice to include it and enable tests once > this package is in Fedora For sure, I haven't had time to test this, but it's definitely a "nice to have" after I start building it. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Created attachment 1681677 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1681677=edit Automated license check result -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Looks mostly OK, I can approve once the license issue is clarified (see the review below). Attaching the licensecheck.txt that fedora-review produces. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = Issues = [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Ignore Expat - the license checker somehow misidentifies the MIT-licensed files in sanitizers-cmake. *but* - The Android files should probably be removed, or you need to add ASL 2.0 to the list of licenses - Some files are actually BSD-licensed (add BSD to the list of licenses) - The files with unknown license presumably fall under the project's ISC license Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "Expat License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Might be worth asking upstream to also declare some files are ASL 2.0 and BSD licensed and include those license files in their repo [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Not a review blocker, but from looking at .gitmodules googletest is needed to run tests -- might be nice to include it and enable tests once this package is in Fedora = 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: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "Expat License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: 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. [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. A bit surprised RPM automatically picks up a dependency on cmake-filesystem for -devel for directory ownership, nice. [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. [?]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Going through the automated fedora-review result right now, but re: the licenses -- looks like sanitizers-cmake is only used as part of the build process, so I'm not sure we need to list its license in the RPM metadata (though it being bundled as a source makes the issue a bit muddled; normally build dependencies are pulled in as a BuildRequires). You are (and cubeb is) using it the way sanitizers-cmake upstream intended though -- per https://github.com/arsenm/sanitizers-cmake -- so it's probably fine this way for now. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mic...@michel-slm.name Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Taking this review -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #2 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #1) > Understood. I will proceed with the new package; I've linked the new review > request bug as FYI. > > After cubeb is accepted and built in rawhide, I'll try to mock something up > and make a pull request if I can build firefox against the shared cubeb. Sorry I posted in this the wrong bug see the linked firefox related bug. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton --- Understood. I will proceed with the new package; I've linked the new review request bug as FYI. After cubeb is accepted and built in rawhide, I'll try to mock something up and make a pull request if I can build firefox against the shared cubeb. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 Jeremy Newton changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|library -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
