[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
vulkan-1.0.26.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
vulkan-1.0.26.0-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-10-05 02:22:18



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
vulkan-1.0.26.0-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
vulkan-1.0.26.0-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-d52c05442d

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
vulkan-1.0.26.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-ea8dcc9d15

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
vulkan-1.0.26.0-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-89bbc07132

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #8 from leigh scott  ---
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #6)
> In regards to vkjson: I actually meant you should include the utility as it
> was requested in the previous review. I'm not sure how important it is
> though. I'll leave that up to you. The changes look good.
> 
> APPROVED

Thank you for the review, package imported and built for all branches.

As for vkjson, I will include it when someone can prove it's actually used.
It seems to provide similar info to vulkaninfo but different values (I doubt
the vkjson info is correct as most values are 0).

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/vulkan

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814

Michael Cronenworth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Michael Cronenworth  ---
In regards to vkjson: I actually meant you should include the utility as it was
requested in the previous review. I'm not sure how important it is though. I'll
leave that up to you. The changes look good.

APPROVED

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #5 from leigh scott  ---
Spec URL:
https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/vulkan/2/vulkan.spec

SRPM URL:
https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/vulkan/2/vulkan-1.0.26.0-3.fc24.src.rpm


* Tue Sep 27 2016 Leigh Scott  - 1.0.26.0-3
- Move unversioned libraries
- Disable vkjson build
- Fix license tag

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #4 from Michael Cronenworth  ---
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #3)
> One thing I forgot to ask: Why is there a BR for systemd-devel? It should
> not be required.

Nevermind. Ignore this. It requires udev.

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #3 from Michael Cronenworth  ---
One thing I forgot to ask: Why is there a BR for systemd-devel? It should not
be required.

-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814



--- Comment #2 from Michael Cronenworth  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Khronos changed from MIT to Apache 2.0 a few months ago.
  Please update the license to ASL 2.0.
  Upstream commit: 43b53e83705f02245da6ae61e31273866a35b833
- The unversioned libraries need to go directly in %{_libdir} 
  and not a sub-directory according to the previous review.
  Previous review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
- The vkjson_info utility is being compiled but not installed.
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros


= 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)". 80
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/michael/Projects/1379814-vulkan/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: 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 run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
 Note: Multiple Release: tags found
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: If the source package does not 

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814

leigh scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@cchtml.com



-- 
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

[Bug 1379814] Review Request: vulkan - Vulkan loader and validation layers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379814

Michael Cronenworth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Blocks||1356229
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Michael Cronenworth  ---
Thanks, Leigh. Starting my review.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356229
[Bug 1356229] RFE enable the Intel Vulkan driver
-- 
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