[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-c67d9c9055 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-06-09 02:44:11 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7d201c8309 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-c67d9c9055 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c67d9c9055 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c67d9c9055 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 Bug 1922638 depends on bug 1906980, which changed state. Bug 1906980 Summary: Review Request: highway - Efficient and performance-portable SIMD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906980 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7d201c8309 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7d201c8309 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7d201c8309 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7d201c8309 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7d201c8309 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-c67d9c9055 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c67d9c9055 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jpegxl -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Antonio T. sagitter --- Package approved. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #16 from Robert-André Mauchin --- My bad, thanks for the 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/jpegxl.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/jpegxl-0.3.7-1.fc35.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638
--- Comment #14 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
-doc and -devel install the same documentation files:
%files doc
%doc doc/*.md
%doc %{_vpath_builddir}/html <
%license LICENSE
%files libs
%license LICENSE
%{_libdir}/libjxl.so.0*
%{_libdir}/libjxl_threads.so.0*
%dir %{_datadir}/thumbnailers
%{_datadir}/thumbnailers/jxl.thumbnailer
%{_datadir}/mime/packages/image-jxl.xml
%files devel
%doc %{_vpath_builddir}/html <
%doc CONTRIBUTING.md
%{_includedir}/jxl/
%{_libdir}/libjxl.so
%{_libdir}/libjxl_threads.so
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libjxl.pc
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libjxl_threads.pc
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/jpegxl.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/jpegxl-0.3.7-1.fc35.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638
--- Comment #12 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 2621440 bytes in 305 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
- '%{_datadir}/thumbnailers' is not owned
- Bundled libraries have not version
- + /usr/bin/ctest --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j8
Test project
/builddir/build/BUILD/jpeg-xl-v0.3.7-9e9bce86164dc4d01c39eeeb3404d6aed85137b2/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
No tests were found!!!
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0", "zlib/libpng license BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "Expat License Apache License 2.0", "zlib/libpng
license Apache License 2.0", "zlib/libpng license", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or "Revised" License". 170 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1922638-jpegxl/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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/thumbnailers
[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]: 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 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
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/jpegxl.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/jpegxl-0.3.7-1.fc35.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 Bug 1922638 depends on bug 1962319, which changed state. Bug 1962319 Summary: Review Request: sjpeg - SimpleJPEG: simple jpeg encoderSimpleJPEG: simple jpeg encoder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962319 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1962319 (sjpeg) --- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #9) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8) > > (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #7) > > > Issues: > > > === > > > - Package installs properly. > > > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > > > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > > > > > Problem: conflicting requests > > > - nothing provides libsjpeg.so.0.1()(64bit) needed by > > > jpegxl-utils-0.3.7-1.fc35.x86_64 > > > > > > > I have two solutions possible for this: build the binaries with static > > libraries included in them or unbundle sjpeg and make it a separate package. > > What do you think is the best option? I had already made a sjpeg package for > > testing but I haven't submitted it yet for review. > > > > > > You're already compiling libsjpeg dynamic libraries, you may install them in > a private lib directory of jpegxl-libs. > I don't see this as a good option, because if someone else needs sjpeg, they won,t be able to package it or provide it along their package without conflict. > Separating sjpeg as new package is another solution, sure, but in my opinion > you should be sure that the 'sjpeg' code bundled is in truth constantly > upgraded/modified for jpegxl's needs; latest 'sjpeg' code bundled is from a > commit of 12h March 2019 (why?). I would ask to upstream. > Sjpeg is not linked to jpeg-xl, they're independently developed. I don,t expect breakage, considering the active developement of jpeg-xl, it would be fixed pretty quickly I believe. > Fron sjpeg side, the code has been recently modified but never stable > released. Is it ready for "living" alone? :) I think so. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962319 [Bug 1962319] Review Request: sjpeg - SimpleJPEG: simple jpeg encoderSimpleJPEG: simple jpeg encoder -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #9 from Antonio T. sagitter --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8) > (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #7) > > Issues: > > === > > - Package installs properly. > > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > > > Problem: conflicting requests > > - nothing provides libsjpeg.so.0.1()(64bit) needed by > > jpegxl-utils-0.3.7-1.fc35.x86_64 > > > > I have two solutions possible for this: build the binaries with static > libraries included in them or unbundle sjpeg and make it a separate package. > What do you think is the best option? I had already made a sjpeg package for > testing but I haven't submitted it yet for review. > > You're already compiling libsjpeg dynamic libraries, you may install them in a private lib directory of jpegxl-libs. Separating sjpeg as new package is another solution, sure, but in my opinion you should be sure that the 'sjpeg' code bundled is in truth constantly upgraded/modified for jpegxl's needs; latest 'sjpeg' code bundled is from a commit of 12h March 2019 (why?). I would ask to upstream. Fron sjpeg side, the code has been recently modified but never stable released. Is it ready for "living" alone? :) -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #7)
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
>
> Problem: conflicting requests
> - nothing provides libsjpeg.so.0.1()(64bit) needed by
> jpegxl-utils-0.3.7-1.fc35.x86_64
>
I have two solutions possible for this: build the binaries with static
libraries included in them or unbundle sjpeg and make it a separate package.
What do you think is the best option? I had already made a sjpeg package for
testing but I haven't submitted it yet for review.
> - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 2662400 bytes in 312 files.
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
> guidelines/#_documentation
>
> Consider to install %doc %{_vpath_builddir}/html (2.4 MB) documentation by
> a doc subpackage.
>
Done
> - 'shared-mime-info' is required by 'jpegxl-libs'
> /usr/share/thumbnailers is a directory not owned yet
>
Done
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638
--- Comment #7 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
Problem: conflicting requests
- nothing provides libsjpeg.so.0.1()(64bit) needed by
jpegxl-utils-0.3.7-1.fc35.x86_64
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 2662400 bytes in 312 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
Consider to install %doc %{_vpath_builddir}/html (2.4 MB) documentation by a
doc subpackage.
- libsjpeg* look not installed but required
- 'shared-mime-info' is required by 'jpegxl-libs'
/usr/share/thumbnailers is a directory not owned yet
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0", "zlib/libpng license BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "Expat License Apache License 2.0", "zlib/libpng
license Apache License 2.0", "zlib/libpng license", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or "Revised" License". 170 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1922638-jpegxl/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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/thumbnailers,
/usr/share/mime, /usr/share/mime/packages
[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.
[!]: 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]: 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 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
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It's the package "highway" that I pushed yesterday in Rawhide. It's probabably not in the latest compose yet so you have to add the local Koji repo for it to work. You could also grab it from COPR here https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/jpeg-xl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02198197-highway/ -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #5 from Antonio T. sagitter --- ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf builddep --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 35 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/jpegxl-0.3.7-1.fc35.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts No matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk fedora 1.5 MB/s | 57 MB 00:37 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:24 ago on Wed May 19 12:28:47 2021. Package gdk-pixbuf2-devel-2.42.2-2.fc35.x86_64 is already installed. Package brotli-devel-1.0.9-4.fc34.x86_64 is already installed. No matching package to install: 'pkgconfig(libhwy)' Package libpng-devel-2:1.6.37-9.fc35.x86_64 is already installed. Package zlib-devel-1.2.11-24.fc34.x86_64 is already installed. Not all dependencies satisfied Error: Some packages could not be found. Where is pkgconfig(libhwy)? It does not exist in your Copr builds neither. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trp...@rocketmail.com 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Built in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/2198208 Changes are: - Renamed the package from jpeg-xl to jpegxl - Split the reference software in a utils subpackage, to match similar codecs standards - Added licenses for bundled libraries - Added asciidoc as a BR to build the man pages for the reference software -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1922638] Review Request: jpegxl - JPEG XL image format reference implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922638 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/jpegxl.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/jpegxl-0.3.7-1.fc35.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
