https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
Bug ID: 2177572 Summary: Review Request: guvcview - GTK+ UVC Viewer and Capturer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngompa13@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/guvcview.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/guvcview-2.0.8-5.fc37.src.rpm
Description: A simple GTK interface for capturing and viewing video from devices supported by the Linux UVC driver, although it should also work with any v4l2 compatible device.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |http://guvcview.sourceforge | |.net/
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5631336 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |yselkowi@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |yselkowi@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
NOTES: * Does it make sense to carry forward RPMFusion's %changelog? * Sources are marked GPL-2.0-or-later but COPYING is GPL3 (probably due to autotools) * WRT files-duplicate warning, the icon copying (and hence the use of hicolor-icon-theme and %_datadir/icons) could be removed from the RPM build and handled solely in the flatpak build with cleanup-commands. * Use of AC_PROG_LIBTOOL doesn't bother me.
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]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2". 95 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/guvcview/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. [x]: 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. [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 30720 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in guvcview-libs , guvcview-devel [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: guvcview-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm guvcview-libs-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm guvcview-devel-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm guvcview-debuginfo-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm guvcview-debugsource-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm guvcview-2.0.8-5.fc39.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp4w4fhl5r')] checks: 31, packages: 6
guvcview-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation guvcview.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/guvcview/guvcview.png /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/guvcview.png 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: guvcview-debuginfo-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm guvcview-libs-debuginfo-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp9kkrj_s6')] checks: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 6
guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewaudio-2.0.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libasound.so.2 guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewencoder-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libgslcblas.so.0 guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewrender-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libgslcblas.so.0 guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewrender-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libstdc++.so.6 guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewrender-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewv4l2core-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libz.so.1 guvcview-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation guvcview.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/guvcview/guvcview.png /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/guvcview.png 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings, 6 badness; has taken 1.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/guvcview/guvcview-src-2.0.8.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a21f4e448286666cf27bafef5290cc953a0a1796b752e5bbe521266dc1230c81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a21f4e448286666cf27bafef5290cc953a0a1796b752e5bbe521266dc1230c81
Requires -------- guvcview (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): guvcview-libs(x86-64) hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgviewaudio-2.0.so.2()(64bit) libgviewencoder-2.1.so.2()(64bit) libgviewrender-2.1.so.2()(64bit) libgviewv4l2core-2.1.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
guvcview-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libavcodec.so.59()(64bit) libavcodec.so.59(LIBAVCODEC_59)(64bit) libavutil.so.57()(64bit) libavutil.so.57(LIBAVUTIL_57)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgsl.so.27()(64bit) libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libportaudio.so.2()(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libv4l2.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
guvcview-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config guvcview-libs(x86-64) libgviewaudio-2.0.so.2()(64bit) libgviewencoder-2.1.so.2()(64bit) libgviewrender-2.1.so.2()(64bit) libgviewv4l2core-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
guvcview-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
guvcview-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- guvcview: application() application(guvcview.desktop) guvcview guvcview(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(guvcview.appdata.xml)
guvcview-libs: guvcview-libs guvcview-libs(x86-64) libgviewaudio-2.0.so.2()(64bit) libgviewencoder-2.1.so.2()(64bit) libgviewrender-2.1.so.2()(64bit) libgviewv4l2core-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
guvcview-devel: guvcview-devel guvcview-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libgviewaudio) pkgconfig(libgviewencoder) pkgconfig(libgviewrender) pkgconfig(libgviewv4l2core)
guvcview-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) guvcview-debuginfo guvcview-debuginfo(x86-64)
guvcview-debugsource: guvcview-debugsource guvcview-debugsource(x86-64)
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: guvcview-src-2.0.8/configure.ac:53
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name guvcview --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #2)
Package Review
NOTES:
- Does it make sense to carry forward RPMFusion's %changelog?
I didn't completely write this package spec from scratch, so yes, I think so. That's the easy way to ensure attribution is preserved.
- Sources are marked GPL-2.0-or-later but COPYING is GPL3 (probably due to
autotools)
I can file a ticket with upstream to put the right COPYING file and drop it from the package for now.
- WRT files-duplicate warning, the icon copying (and hence the use of
hicolor-icon-theme and %_datadir/icons) could be removed from the RPM build and handled solely in the flatpak build with cleanup-commands.
I'd prefer to leave this alone for the rpm build. I could file a ticket asking them to update their icon handling though.
- Use of AC_PROG_LIBTOOL doesn't bother me.
Meh.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- I've respun the package with the update wrt license file. Same links as before.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #5 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline..., because this is GPL, it seems necessary to add a GPL 2.0 text file as Source1, copy it in during %setup and then %license it; omitting it does not seem to be a valid option in this case.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #5)
According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text, because this is GPL, it seems necessary to add a GPL 2.0 text file as Source1, copy it in during %setup and then %license it; omitting it does not seem to be a valid option in this case.
Done. See updated spec and SRPM at previously mentioned location.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #7 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1950325 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1950325&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5631336 to 5633582
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5633582 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- Thanks, package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/guvcview
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a5ae23238b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a5ae23238b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a5ae23238b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a5ae23238b
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9f383d78bb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9f383d78bb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1d9f75e126 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1d9f75e126
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-15 00:18:04
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9f383d78bb has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a5ae23238b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-1d9f75e126 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1abfe78bd4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1abfe78bd4
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37 Flatpaks. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 Flatpaks testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1abfe78bd4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177572
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 Flatpaks stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com