https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2380030 Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Here is a full review Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages According to the same guideline: "When a shared library file is only provided in an unversioned format, the packager should ask upstream to consider providing a properly versioned library file. However, in such cases, if the shared library file is necessary for users to run programs linked against it, it must go into the base package. If upstream versions the shared library file at a future point, packagers must be careful to move to the versioned layout described above." While the issue is a non-blocker, please consider making a versioned shared library for easy of maintenance. ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/intel-level-zero-gpu- raytracing/licensecheck.txt While licensing is correct, consider list the other licenses using https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/usd/blob/rawhide/f/usd.spec as an example to enumerate [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. [-]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing-1.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpwcvfb6l6')] checks: 32, packages: 2 intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.src: W: summary-not-capitalized oneAPI Level Zero Ray Tracing Support library intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized oneAPI Level Zero Ray Tracing Support library intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.src: E: spelling-error ('oneAPI', 'Summary(en_US) oneAPI -> one API, one-API, Oneal') intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.src: E: spelling-error ('oneAPI', '%description -l en_US oneAPI -> one API, one-API, Oneal') intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('oneAPI', 'Summary(en_US) oneAPI -> one API, one-API, Oneal') intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('oneAPI', '%description -l en_US oneAPI -> one API, one-API, Oneal') All above are safe to ignore intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.x86_64: W: no-documentation intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.spec: W: no-%check-section intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libze_intel_gpu_raytracing.so libze_intel_gpu_raytracing.so Consider making versioned shared library as upstream maintainer in a future. intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.src: E: description-line-too-long The oneAPI Level Zero Ray Tracing Support library implements high performance CPU intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The oneAPI Level Zero Ray Tracing Support library implements high performance CPU Shorten the line to overcome the limit of spec file like Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmplslkx4xn')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing-debuginfo". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 32, packages: 2 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing: /usr/lib64/libze_intel_gpu_raytracing.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/level-zero-raytracing-support/archive/v1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e31e6604516d2a5203437c9737682fd98696d0ab4aaa3ffb55d3fc17da2662ba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e31e6604516d2a5203437c9737682fd98696d0ab4aaa3ffb55d3fc17da2662ba Requires -------- intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit). libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) oneapi-level-zero rtld(GNU_HASH) tbb Provides -------- intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing: intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing intel-level-zero-gpu-raytracing(x86-64) libze_intel_gpu_raytracing.so()(64bit) Given the package is a library, we can approve the package as long the above suggestions are applied. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2380030 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202380030%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
