[Bug 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-23 21:57:59 -- 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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fcft -- 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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
> 1. meson already uses ninja […]
This is a little embarrassing, speaking as a regular meson user who knows this
perfectly well. I can only plead that I have, as you guessed, reviewed or
maintained far too many cmake-based packages lately. Please ignore this
finding.
> 2. As per change discussion, BR: make is not needed for meson or cmake
> projects unless make is used in the spec file explicitly.
I had missed this in the discussion, and it’s welcome knowledge. Thanks.
> I feel that it defeats the whole purpose of pkgconfig(...) macros, but
> applied anyways.
I tend to agree. I think that it’s supposed to help find packages that must be
rebuilt in case of a security update, but I don’t see why a …-devel or
pkgconfig(…) BR isn’t sufficient in most cases. Besides, libraries that have a
compiled portion, but have significant functionality in inline functions, are
functionally similar (rebuilding the shared object only may not be sufficient
for a security update) but not subject to the same rule. Anyway, the guidelines
are clear enough that there’s no wiggle room, I think.
Approved, with full re-review below.
=
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1912855-fcft/re-
review/1912855-fcft/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]:
[Bug 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(alebastr89@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin --- (In reply to code from comment #1) Thanks for the review! > - Need to document breakdown of multiple licenses in spec file. > A comment above the License field like the following would suffice. Thanks for catching this, fixed in new revision. I thought I've already done that... > - A new change in Fedora 34 is that make is not included in the buildroot. > While gcc currently pulls in make as a transitive dependency, this could > change. You must add a BR on make. (I think this is still not in the > Guidelines.) Or, do “%meson -GNinja” and add a BR on ninja-build instead. 1. meson already uses ninja and doesn't support other generators on Linux. I think you're confusing it with cmake. 2. As per change discussion, BR: make is not needed for meson or cmake projects unless make is used in the spec file explicitly. It's the job of cmake and meson packages to depend on the appropriate generator. The common consent was that for %meson/%meson_build/... and %cmake/%cmake_build/... families of macros the packager is not aware of the default generator and should not care about it. > - Since tllist is a header-only library, you must BR tllist-static, even > though you already BR pkgconfig(tllist). A little silly, I think, but > mandatory. I feel that it defeats the whole purpose of pkgconfig(...) macros, but applied anyways. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01896898-fcft/fcft.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01896898-fcft/fcft-2.3.2-0.1.fc34.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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(alebastr89@gmail.
||com)
--- Comment #1 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
A wonderfully clean spec file. Just a few tiny issues before I can approve it.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
- Need to document breakdown of multiple licenses in spec file.
A comment above the License field like the following would suffice.
# The entire source code is MIT except unicode/ which is Unicode
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
- A new change in Fedora 34 is that make is not included in the buildroot.
While gcc currently pulls in make as a transitive dependency, this could
change. You must add a BR on make. (I think this is still not in the
Guidelines.) Or, do “%meson -GNinja” and add a BR on ninja-build instead.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
- Since tllist is a header-only library, you must BR tllist-static, even
though you already BR pkgconfig(tllist). A little silly, I think, but
mandatory.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries
= 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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1912855-fcft/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. A comment above the License field
like the following would suffice.
# The entire source code is MIT except unicode/ which is Unicode
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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
[Bug 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@musicinmybrain.net Flags||fedora-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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1912856 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912856 [Bug 1912856] Review Request: foot - Fast, lightweight and minimalistic Wayland terminal emulator -- 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
