https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora(a)svgames.pl --- Comment #1 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- This URL points to a syntax-highlighted, HTML rendition of the spec. Please use "raw file" links. Please don't just repeat the summary here. The description you gave here in the ticket ("kmscube is [...] minimal working state") would be good enough. Is this needed? I think rpm should pick these up on its own if the binary actually links to these. (Well, unless it loads them dynamically at runtime.) -- 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=1998497 --- Comment #3 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Can you rebuild the package and post a new SRPM? The original link gives a 404. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497 Debarshi Ray <debarshir(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |debarshir(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |debarshir(a)redhat.com -- 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=1998497

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(debarshir@redhat. | |com) --- Comment #6 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Debarshi, are you planning to finalize the review anytime soon? If you're currently busy, I could take over 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497 --- Comment #8 from Erico Nunes <ernunes(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thanks for checking back on this one. It's been sitting here for a while but I'm still interested in getting this package in Fedora and would appreciate if you can help move this forward. -- 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=1998497

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497 --- Comment #10 from Erico Nunes <ernunes(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #9) If I understand it correctly this would also mean that we forever need to increase that number even when bumping to a newer snapshot, since Version needs to stay at 0. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_up... Is that the way it should work? -- 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=1998497

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497 --- Comment #12 from Erico Nunes <ernunes(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Ok, I adjusted the versioning and license file install and here is the new result: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82374354 https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/enunes/kmscube/build/3297771/ https://gitlab.com/enunes/kmscube-spec/-/raw/master/kmscube.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/enunes/kmscube/fedora-35-... -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Package 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]: 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 [-]: 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 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: [-]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: kmscube-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.x86_64.rpm kmscube-debuginfo-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.x86_64.rpm kmscube-debugsource-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.x86_64.rpm kmscube-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.src.rpm kmscube.x86_64: W: no-documentation kmscube.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kmscube kmscube.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary texturator 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kmscube-debuginfo-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/kmscube/-/archive/9f63f359fab1b5d8e86... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8af4c16f79b042c991ed1166d8d92e47f65a04b9b8ec7c3d3b72d1a17fa0e597 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8af4c16f79b042c991ed1166d8d92e47f65a04b9b8ec7c3d3b72d1a17fa0e597 Requires -------- kmscube (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libEGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLESv2.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdrm.so.2()(64bit) libgbm.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstallocators-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstapp-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstbase-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstvideo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) kmscube-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kmscube-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- kmscube: kmscube kmscube(x86-64) kmscube-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kmscube-debuginfo kmscube-debuginfo(x86-64) kmscube-debugsource: kmscube-debugsource kmscube-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1998497 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, R, PHP, Python, Java, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2022-06-09 21:59:18 --- Comment #15 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl&gt; --- Closing this since the package is now available in F36 and Rawhide. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998497