[Bug 1858419] Review Request: libavif - Library for encoding and decoding .avif filesLibrary for encoding and decoding .avif files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858419

Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |NOTABUG
        Last Closed|                            |2020-07-21 21:03:34



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
> > Name:       libavif
> > Version:    0.8.0
> > Release:    1%{?dist}
> > Summary:    Library for encoding and decoding .avif files
> 
> > License:    BSD
> 
> I would indicate which version of the BSD license it is. `fedora-review`
> reports BSDv2 mostly.

We don't version the BSD license in Fedora. We have that list
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
where you can see what shorthand to use for any "good" licence.

> 
> > %files devel
> > %doc examples/
> > %{_includedir}/avif
> > %{_libdir}/libavif.so
> > %{_libdir}/cmake/libavif
> > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libavif.pc
> 
> The -devel package should probably include the license as well.

The -devel subpackage depends on the main package, therefore it is not needed
to reinclude the license. The license must be included once per package
combination.

> 
> > %package      -n avif-tools
> > Summary:         Tools to encode and decode AVIF files
> 
> > %description  -n avif-tools
> > Tools to encode and decode AVIF files.
> 
> > %package     -n avif-pixbuf-loader
> > Summary:        AVIF image loader for GTK+ applications
> > BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(gdk-pixbuf-2.0)
> > Requires:       gdk-pixbuf2
> 
> Should the sub-packages not explicitly depend on the main package with
> %{version} restrictions?
> 
Both packages contain binaries that are linked to libavif versioned library, so
it will be autodetected by RPM dependency manager. I could explicitly Requires
it if needed.

> > %files -n avif-pixbuf-loader
> > %license LICENSE
> > %{_libdir}/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/*/loaders/libpixbufloader-avif.so
> 
> Should this shared object not be versioned?
> 

No, this is a plugin in a private directory, versioning only applies to
libraries in the libdir top level directory.

> 
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
>   Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
>   https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libavif
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
> 
> 

Apparently this is already packaged but I didn't notice it. Sorry.


-- 
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