[Bug 2232847] New: Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
Bug ID: 2232847 Summary: Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: robinlee.sysu@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/deepin-wayland-protocols.spec SRPM URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/deepin-wayland-protocols-1.6.0.deepin.1.2... Description: Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland. Fedora Account System Username: cheeselee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1465889 | |(DeepinDEPackageReview), | |2232848 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889 [Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232848 [Bug 2232848] Review Request: dwayland - Deepin Specific Qt-style Client and Server library wrapper for the Wayland libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tim@goat.re
--- Comment #1 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- This is an unofficial review as I am not in the packager group yet.
The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'LGPLv2+ and MIT and BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license- fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
To conform to the new license abbreviations the License field should be: LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND BSD-3-Clause
deepin-wayland-protocols.x86_64: E: no-binary
As the package does not contain any binaries you should set it to noarch architecture.
deepin-wayland-protocols-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The deepin-wayland-protocols-devel package contains libraries and header files for
Please split the description across multiple lines, ensuring that each line does not exceed 79 characters.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
--- Comment #2 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- (In reply to Tim Semeijn from comment #1)
This is an unofficial review as I am not in the packager group yet.
The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'LGPLv2+ and MIT and BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license- fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
To conform to the new license abbreviations the License field should be: LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND BSD-3-Clause
Done.
deepin-wayland-protocols.x86_64: E: no-binary
As the package does not contain any binaries you should set it to noarch architecture.
This package installs files under %{_libdir}, so it cannot be set noarch.
deepin-wayland-protocols-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The deepin-wayland-protocols-devel package contains libraries and header files for
Please split the description across multiple lines, ensuring that each line does not exceed 79 characters.
Done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
--- Comment #3 from Tim Semeijn tim@goat.re --- This is an unofficial review as I am not accepted into the packager group yet.
Package Review ==============
===== Comments ===== - As the package installs files under %{_libdir} noarch can not be set. no-binary rpmlint error can be ignored. - All seems good. Someone with the rights to approve this package should have a final look at this review request.
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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: "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or CMU License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 and/or MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "CMU License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/2232847-deepin-wayland- protocols/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 [-]: 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. [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 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [-]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [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]: 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: deepin-wayland-protocols-1.6.0.deepin.1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm deepin-wayland-protocols-devel-1.6.0.deepin.1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm deepin-wayland-protocols-1.6.0.deepin.1.2-1.fc40.src.rpm =============================================================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 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/tmptbl268w6')] checks: 31, packages: 3
deepin-wayland-protocols-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib deepin-wayland-protocols.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-wayland-protocols-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-wayland-protocols.x86_64: E: no-binary ================================================ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s ===============================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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: 31, packages: 2
deepin-wayland-protocols-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib deepin-wayland-protocols-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-wayland-protocols.x86_64: W: no-documentation deepin-wayland-protocols.x86_64: E: no-binary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Requires -------- deepin-wayland-protocols (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
deepin-wayland-protocols-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) deepin-wayland-protocols(x86-64)
Provides -------- deepin-wayland-protocols: deepin-wayland-protocols deepin-wayland-protocols(x86-64)
deepin-wayland-protocols-devel: cmake(DeepinWaylandProtocols) cmake(deepinwaylandprotocols) deepin-wayland-protocols-devel deepin-wayland-protocols-devel(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2232847 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Ruby, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, Perl, R, Python, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |topazus@outlook.com CC| |topazus@outlook.com Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Take this. Besides the above Tim's comments, Here are my comments.
1. It would be better to put the files in the -devel sub-package, like the wayland-protocols package, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wayland-protocols/blob/rawhide/f/wayland-...
2.
The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use %{name}.
The description is not appropriate to express the package.
3.
BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-devel
I see the CMake files in the project, it seems that the package do not have this build dependency.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
--- Comment #5 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- (In reply to Felix Wang from comment #4)
Take this. Besides the above Tim's comments, Here are my comments.
- It would be better to put the files in the -devel sub-package, like the
wayland-protocols package, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wayland-protocols/blob/rawhide/f/wayland- protocols.spec
Done.
The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use %{name}.
The description is not appropriate to express the package.
Done. The description is updated.
BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-devel
I see the CMake files in the project, it seems that the package do not have this build dependency.
Done. BR on qt5-qtbase-devel is dropped.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- I reckon it is pretty fine for me. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deepin-wayland-protocols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f7bb8db7f0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f7bb8db7f0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-11-06 13:31:26
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f7bb8db7f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com