[Bug 2275556] Review Request: ibus-array - The Array 30 input method
for IBus input platform
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275556
--- Comment #5 from Sandro <gui1ty(a)penguinpee.nl> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Notes
=====
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
=> No devel sub package provided. Not sure if it makes sense for this package,
but there are some header files.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
=> Upstream has released version 0.2.3, please update before importing
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
=> Upstream doesn't provide any tests. Would be nice if they were. Not blocking
the review, though.
[!]: 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).
=> Not a problem. This is the usual rpmautospec expansion happening.
[!] ibus-array.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-array/NEWS
=> I think upstream decided to use `Changelog` instead. Please remove `NEWS`
from %files. No point in including empty files.
[!] ibus-array.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/ibus-array/setup/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
=> Please ensure the file is executable and uses the proper Python shebang.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1151 bytes in 4 files.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[?]: 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:
[-]: 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)
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5376000 bytes in /usr/share
[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).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ibus-array-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
ibus-array-debuginfo-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
ibus-array-debugsource-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
ibus-array-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
============================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpartgcd0h')]
checks: 32, packages: 4
ibus-array.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-array/NEWS
ibus-array.src: E: spelling-error ('keymap', '%description -l en_US keymap ->
key map, key-map, mapmaker')
ibus-array.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('keymap', '%description -l en_US keymap
-> key map, key-map, mapmaker')
ibus-array.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ibus-array/setup/main.py
644 /usr/bin/env python3
======================================================================================
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 4
badness; has taken 0.9 s
=======================================================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ibus-array-debuginfo-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
============================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
============================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpu8c3wru7')]
checks: 32, packages: 1
=======================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.2 s
=======================================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for zh_TW.
(none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for zh_TW.
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 3
ibus-array.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-array/NEWS
ibus-array.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('keymap', '%description -l en_US keymap
-> key map, key-map, mapmaker')
ibus-array.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ibus-array/setup/main.py
644 /usr/bin/env python3
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 3
badness; has taken 0.5 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/lexical/ibus-array/archive/969cf4ba8d910574007d38989da...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
482504e02eaa18ac9d35c7b6756f96befe447a2b2e3addf3a4f49edcd2746d50
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
482504e02eaa18ac9d35c7b6756f96befe447a2b2e3addf3a4f49edcd2746d50
Requires
--------
ibus-array (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/sh
ibus
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libibus-1.0.so.5()(64bit)
libopencc.so.1.1()(64bit)
libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ibus-array-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ibus-array-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
ibus-array:
ibus-array
ibus-array(x86-64)
ibus-array-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
ibus-array-debuginfo
ibus-array-debuginfo(x86-64)
ibus-array-debugsource:
ibus-array-debugsource
ibus-array-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/sandro/devel/fedora/fedora-review/2275556-ibus-array/srpm/ibus-array.spec
2024-04-23 11:19:58.209252340 +0200
+++
/home/sandro/devel/fedora/fedora-review/2275556-ibus-array/srpm-unpacked/ibus-array.spec
2024-04-19 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+ release_number = 1;
+ base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+ print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
%global snapdate 20240419
%global commit 969cf4ba8d910574007d38989dac5b0e1f8aea15
@@ -49,3 +59,6 @@
%changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Fri Apr 19 2024 Kan-Ru Chen <kanru(a)kanru.info> - 0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1
+- 0.2.2^20240419
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2275556
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Java, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell,
fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275556
Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...
3 weeks, 2 days
[Bug 2253923] [abrt] setroubleshoot:
_FcObjectLookupOtherTypeByName(): python3.12 killed by SIGABRT
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253923
Sylvain Arth <sylvain(a)gwenved.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(sylvain(a)gwenved.o |
|rg) |
--- Comment #15 from Sylvain Arth <sylvain(a)gwenved.org> ---
I'd like to answer, to the question "How to reproduce" because I really can't.
Nowadays; all my Fedora OS machines are running as virtual machines on two
different Windows servers.
The main purpose of those instances is to act as servers for mails, DNS, NTP
and many other usual servers like that.
Punctually, I use them for comparison about possibly different behaviour about
"mock-up software" of my personal coding in Ada complied with GNAT.
In other words, I usually just check by emails that all those V-machines and
servers are still in good health.
I very rarely fall into the bug I reported, whilst I'm currently doing anything
on.
Most of the time, It's after reboot-startup (clean or dirty because of some
failure of the hosting PC), at login time I get the warning about bugs detected
by Fedora.
I could ignore them, but my thought is that it could help bug solving, with
providing more data, even "raw" ones.
I very know this is not quite at all the best bug reporting way.
But I also know (I was famous about that prior I retired) my "bug catcher"
reputation.
In other words, I tend to fall into bug traps other people never fall in.
I ignore why about this, I just know it's a fact.
I just suspect it's because I've my own way to do things that is often not the
"most common way to do things".
But if my reports are rather totally useless, just tell me that's the actual
case.
If so, I will totally stop top sending such kind of reports, to only report
those I'm able to tell something like a clue about "how to reproduce,
possibly".
Regards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253923
Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...
3 weeks, 3 days
[Bug 2272902] New: ibus-pinyin preferences window fails to open
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272902
Bug ID: 2272902
Summary: ibus-pinyin preferences window fails to open
Product: Fedora
Version: 39
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: ibus-pinyin
Keywords: Desktop
Severity: medium
Assignee: pwu(a)redhat.com
Reporter: dlunn(a)duck.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pwu(a)redhat.com,
shawn.p.huang(a)gmail.com, tfujiwar(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
By running ibus-setup from a terminal, I am able to diagnose the origin of this
issue with this output:
```Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/share/ibus-pinyin/setup/main.py", line 31, in <module>
from xdg import BaseDirectory
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'xdg'
```
The module 'xdg' has been deprecated in favour of 'xdg-base-dirs'. It would be
possible to rewrite the code to use 'xdg-base-dirs', however upstream has
simply removed that line of code in this
[commit](https://github.com/ibus/ibus-pinyin/commit/616770084991de0f36bea7...
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open "Preferences" for ibus-pinyin from the keyboard layout switcher in
GNOME top bar
Actual Results:
Nothing happens.
Expected Results:
The preferences window for ibus-pinyin should open.
I notice that Debian considers ibus-pinyin deprecated. I’d like some
clarification if possible on Fedora’s stance on continuing to maintain the
ibus-pinyin package, as the aforementioned commit didn't seem to find its way
into the Fedora package, either when it was committed or in the 6 years since
then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272902
Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...
3 weeks, 6 days