https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
Bug ID: 1652305 Summary: Review Request: dav1d - AV1 cross-platform Decoder Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zebob.m@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/dav1d/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/dav1d/fedora-rawhid...
Description: dav1d is a new AV1 cross-platform Decoder, open-source, and focused on speed and correctness.
Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- 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]: 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other 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. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 3 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 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 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. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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. [x]: %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]: 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: dav1d-0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30.x86_64.rpm libdav1d-0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30.x86_64.rpm libdav1d-devel-0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30.x86_64.rpm dav1d-debuginfo-0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30.x86_64.rpm dav1d-debugsource-0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30.x86_64.rpm dav1d-0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30.src.rpm dav1d.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.4.20181118git842b207 ['0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30', '0-0.4.20181118git842b2074'] dav1d.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dav1d libdav1d.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdav1d-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dav1d.src: W: strange-permission makesrc.sh 775 dav1d.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dav1d-842b2074.tar.gz 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dav1d-debuginfo-0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libdav1d-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdav1d.x86_64: W: no-documentation dav1d.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.4.20181118git842b207 ['0-0.4.20181118git842b2074.fc30', '0-0.4.20181118git842b2074'] dav1d.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dav1d 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- dav1d-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdav1d-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libdav1d(x86-64) libdav1d.so.0()(64bit)
dav1d-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdav1d (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dav1d (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdav1d.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- dav1d-debugsource: dav1d-debugsource dav1d-debugsource(x86-64)
libdav1d-devel: libdav1d-devel libdav1d-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(dav1d)
dav1d-debuginfo: dav1d-debuginfo dav1d-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id)
libdav1d: libdav1d libdav1d(x86-64) libdav1d.so.0()(64bit)
dav1d: dav1d dav1d(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1652305 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package and packaging looks good.
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Actually, hold on. This is our first non-aom AV1 implementation.
I'd like to have confirmation from FE-Legal for acceptance of this.
And we probably need the PATENTS file marked as a license file.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Added PATENTS as license locally. It's the same as AV1, not sure why it would cause an issue.
Alliance for Open Media Patent License 1.0
1. License Terms.
1.1. Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Licensor, on behalf of itself and successors in interest and assigns, grants Licensee a non-sublicensable, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as expressly stated in this License) patent license to its Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import or distribute any Implementation.
1.2. Conditions.
1.2.1. Availability. As a condition to the grant of rights to Licensee to make, sell, offer for sale, import or distribute an Implementation under Section 1.1, Licensee must make its Necessary Claims available under this License, and must reproduce this License with any Implementation as follows:
a. For distribution in source code, by including this License in the root directory of the source code with its Implementation.
b. For distribution in any other form (including binary, object form, and/or hardware description code (e.g., HDL, RTL, Gate Level Netlist, GDSII, etc.)), by including this License in the documentation, legal notices, and/or other written materials provided with the Implementation.
1.2.2. Additional Conditions. This license is directly from Licensor to Licensee. Licensee acknowledges as a condition of benefiting from it that no rights from Licensor are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this License.
1.3. Defensive Termination. If any Licensee, its Affiliates, or its agents initiates patent litigation or files, maintains, or voluntarily participates in a lawsuit against another entity or any person asserting that any Implementation infringes Necessary Claims, any patent licenses granted under this License directly to the Licensee are immediately terminated as of the date of the initiation of action unless 1) that suit was in response to a corresponding suit regarding an Implementation first brought against an initiating entity, or 2) that suit was brought to enforce the terms of this License (including intervention in a third-party action by a Licensee).
1.4. Disclaimers. The Reference Implementation and Specification are provided "AS IS" and without warranty. The entire risk as to implementing or otherwise using the Reference Implementation or Specification is assumed by the implementer and user. Licensor expressly disclaims any warranties (express, implied, or otherwise), including implied warranties of merchantability, non-infringement, fitness for a particular purpose, or title, related to the material. IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO ANY OTHER PARTY FOR LOST PROFITS OR ANY FORM OF INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY CHARACTER FROM ANY CAUSES OF ACTION OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO THIS LICENSE, WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER PARTRY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
2. Definitions.
2.1. Affiliate. “Affiliate” means an entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control of that party.
2.2. Control. “Control” means direct or indirect control of more than 50% of the voting power to elect directors of that corporation, or for any other entity, the power to direct management of such entity.
2.3. Decoder. "Decoder" means any decoder that conforms fully with all non-optional portions of the Specification.
2.4. Encoder. "Encoder" means any encoder that produces a bitstream that can be decoded by a Decoder only to the extent it produces such a bitstream.
2.5. Final Deliverable. “Final Deliverable” means the final version of a deliverable approved by the Alliance for Open Media as a Final Deliverable.
2.6. Implementation. "Implementation" means any implementation, including the Reference Implementation, that is an Encoder and/or a Decoder. An Implementation also includes components of an Implementation only to the extent they are used as part of an Implementation.
2.7. License. “License” means this license.
2.8. Licensee. “Licensee” means any person or entity who exercises patent rights granted under this License.
2.9. Licensor. "Licensor" means (i) any Licensee that makes, sells, offers for sale, imports or distributes any Implementation, or (ii) a person or entity that has a licensing obligation to the Implementation as a result of its membership and/or participation in the Alliance for Open Media working group that developed the Specification.
2.10. Necessary Claims. "Necessary Claims" means all claims of patents or patent applications, (a) that currently or at any time in the future, are owned or controlled by the Licensor, and (b) (i) would be an Essential Claim as defined by the W3C Policy as of February 5, 2004 (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential) as if the Specification was a W3C Recommendation; or (ii) are infringed by the Reference Implementation.
2.11. Reference Implementation. “Reference Implementation” means an Encoder and/or Decoder released by the Alliance for Open Media as a Final Deliverable.
2.12. Specification. “Specification” means the specification designated by the Alliance for Open Media as a Final Deliverable for which this License was issued.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
Added PATENTS as license locally. It's the same as AV1, not sure why it would cause an issue.
It is probably fine, but I want to have a clear signal that AV1 implementations not derived from libaom are suitable for inclusion.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- No problems with what I see here. Lifting FE-Legal.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Thanks Tom!
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305
--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dav1d
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com