https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/vkBasalt/fedora-31-x86_64/01125716-vkBasalt/vkBasalt.spec

https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/vkBasalt/fedora-31-x86_64/01125716-vkBasalt/vkBasalt-0.2.1-3.fc31.src.rpm

 - Bump to 0.2.2

 - Why is this disabled? You need to investigate why debuginfo are not generated:

%global debug_package %{nil}


 From the log it seems the flags set by %set_build_flags are completly ignored. Patch the Makefile or maybe look at this nezw commit:
https://github.com/DadSchoorse/vkBasalt/commit/b75bccd7ff9204dfa8c402608ed33a4741487c40


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]: 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]: 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: "zlib/libpng license", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License",
     "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 57 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/vkBasalt/review-vkBasalt/licensecheck.txt
[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
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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 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 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: 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 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: vkBasalt-0.2.1-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          vkBasalt-0.2.1-3.fc32.src.rpm
vkBasalt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Vulkan -> Vulcan
vkBasalt.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/vkBasalt/libvkbasalt32.so
vkBasalt.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/vkBasalt/libvkbasalt64.so
vkBasalt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Vulkan -> Vulcan
vkBasalt.src:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/
vkBasalt.src:53: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/libvkbasalt32.so
vkBasalt.src:64: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.

> - Why is this disabled? You need to investigate why debuginfo are not generated:
> %global debug_package %{nil}

I tried. :) And reported already few bugs, it was worse before. We even tried to send PR with full Meson port, but
https://github.com/DadSchoorse/vkBasalt/pull/19


> From the log it seems the flags set by %set_build_flags are completly ignored. Patch the Makefile or maybe look at this nezw commit:
https://github.com/DadSchoorse/vkBasalt/commit/b75bccd7ff9204dfa8c402608ed33a4741487c40

Oh, finally fixed Makefile... I'll try this soon of course.

New commit still requires some work. I patched my build and it works and now with proper build flags and debuginfo.

https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/vkBasalt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01130150-vkBasalt/vkBasalt.spec

https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/vkBasalt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01130150-vkBasalt/vkBasalt-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm

Package works fine locally in mock but does not at all in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39678033
On 32 bits arches you can't compile the 64 bits part and on other arches, you get error like:

No matching package to install: 'glibc-devel(x86-32)'
No matching package to install: 'glslang(x86-32)'

Oh this true. And our Meson port which was suggested to upstream could easily solve this.

vkBasalt ported on meson. 🎉

New build:

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/vkBasalt-meson/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01726231-vkBasalt/vkBasalt.spec

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/vkBasalt-meson/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01726231-vkBasalt/vkBasalt-0.3.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm

 - This need to be versioned or maybe put in in a private directory with option introduced in 0.3.2.3

%{_libdir}/libvkbasalt.so

 - Bump to 0.3.2.3 


 - There are some ASL 2.0 files:

Apache License 2.0
------------------
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/cast_utils.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/hash_util.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/hash_vk_types.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_dispatch_table_helper.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_enum_string_helper.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_extension_helper.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_format_utils.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_format_utils.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_icd.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_config.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_config.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_data.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_dispatch_table.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_extension_utils.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_extension_utils.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_logging.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_utils.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_utils.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_loader_platform.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_object_types.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_platform.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_safe_struct.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_safe_struct.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_sdk_platform.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_typemap_helper.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_validation_error_messages.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_android.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_beta.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_core.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_fuchsia.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_ggp.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_ios.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_macos.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_metal.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_vi.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_wayland.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_win32.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_xcb.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_xlib.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_xlib_xrandr.h


Please include ASL 2.0 to the License field and add a comment explaining the license breakdown.





Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng license", "Expat License",
     "the Unlicense Expat License", "Khronos License", "Apache License
     2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 Apache License 2.0", "BSD
     3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 108 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/vkBasalt/review-vkBasalt/licensecheck.txt
[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
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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 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]: %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.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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: vkBasalt-0.3.2.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          vkBasalt-debuginfo-0.3.2.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          vkBasalt-debugsource-0.3.2.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          vkBasalt-0.3.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm
vkBasalt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Vulkan -> Vulcan
vkBasalt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shaders -> shades, sharers, shavers
vkBasalt.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libvkbasalt.so libvkbasalt.so
vkBasalt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Vulkan -> Vulcan
vkBasalt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shaders -> shades, sharers, shavers
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/vkBasalt-meson/fedora-33-x86_64/01746646-vkBasalt/vkBasalt.spec

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/vkBasalt-meson/fedora-33-x86_64/01746646-vkBasalt/vkBasalt-0.3.2.3-1.fc33.src.rpm

With ugly workaround again and sed'ing, but works. Should been fixed in meson though and upstreamed.

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/vkBasalt-meson/fedora-33-x86_64/01746758-vkBasalt/vkBasalt.spec

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/vkBasalt-meson/fedora-33-x86_64/01746758-vkBasalt/vkBasalt-0.3.2.3-2.fc33.src.rpm

Package approved.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vkBasalt

FEDORA-2020-72a70eea62 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-72a70eea62

FEDORA-2020-ca3b0196e1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ca3b0196e1

FEDORA-2020-11afeac81d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-11afeac81d

FEDORA-2020-72a70eea62 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-11afeac81d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-11afeac81d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-11afeac81d

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-ca3b0196e1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-ca3b0196e1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ca3b0196e1

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-ca3b0196e1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2020-11afeac81d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.