https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588 Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Task CC| |luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588 --- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net&gt; --- Look at the failure of compiling, it appears the issue occured on that line: /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `Py_InitializeEx' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `PyDict_GetItemString' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `PyObject_GetAttrString' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `_Py_Dealloc' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `PyImport_ImportModule' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `PyCapsule_GetPointer' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `PyCapsule_IsValid' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `PyEval_SaveThread' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `PyGILState_Ensure' /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libvapoursynth-script.so: undefined reference to `Py_IsInitialized' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [Makefile:1324: vspipe] Error 1 Similar report from upstream suggests a python3 issue: https://github.com/vapoursynth/vapoursynth/issues/518 And possible workaround: https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.8.html#debug-build-uses-the-same-abi... -- 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=1791588 Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(negativo17@gmail. | |com) | --- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Fixed, also made sure one can avoid installing the Python integration. Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/vapoursynth.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/vapoursynth-48-2.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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588 --- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Sorry the delay, was pretty busy at work. Updated package: Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/vapoursynth.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/vapoursynth-48-3.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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588 --- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Any chance we can progress with the review? Thanks. -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #10 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net&gt; --- More fixes to resolves: - Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/vapoursynth - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/vapoursynth- libs(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed), /usr/share/licenses/vapoursynth-libs(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed), /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/VapourSynth-48-py3.8.egg- info(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed), /usr/include/vapoursynth(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed) - Use "autosetup -p1" for patches rather than "setup" or "setup -q" and condition Patch1 for Fedora 32 Here are the result gerenerated from fedora-review ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: 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", "SIL Open Font License (v1.1)", "do What The Fuck you want to Public License (v2)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC License", "*No copyright* do What The Fuck you want to Public License (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 184 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/luya/Documents/fedora- review/1791588-vapoursynth/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/vapoursynth [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/vapoursynth- libs(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed), /usr/share/licenses/vapoursynth-libs(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed), /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/VapourSynth-48-py3.8.egg- info(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed), /usr/include/vapoursynth(locale,, defaulting, C, to, set, Failed) [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. [x]: 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 51200 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]: 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 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: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vapoursynth-libs , python3-vapoursynth , vapoursynth-devel , vapoursynth-tools [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/vapoursynth.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/vapoursynth-48-4.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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588 Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1665633 is| | obsolete| | --- Comment #14 from Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Created attachment 1665635 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1665635&action=edit Spec file patch Sorry, mistakenly put wrong patch. Here: Tests work and passed if build first without test and then second build with 'vapoursynth-devel' there. Also some cosmetic improvements to improve readability. -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #16 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #15) Thanks for the review! Yes, I will make sure the patch from Artem Polishchuk is included when pushing to git. -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #18 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I've requested the various branches (epel 7 up to rawhide). (In reply to Artem from comment #17) Are you in the packager group? Would you like to step in as a co-maintainer? -- 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=1791588 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cb2d3ef940 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cb2d3ef940 -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-7e7624827c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e7624827c -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- vapoursynth-48-6.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4d1fa25410 -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- vapoursynth-48-6.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cb2d3ef940 -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-37c7a10025 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-37c7a10025 -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- vapoursynth-48-7.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cb2d3ef940 -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- vapoursynth-48-7.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e7624827c -- 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=1791588 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- vapoursynth-48-7.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- vapoursynth-48-7.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791588 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- vapoursynth-48-7.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, 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