[Bug 2127961] New: Review Request: kpipewire - Set of convenient classes to use PipeWire in Qt projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
Bug ID: 2127961 Summary: Review Request: kpipewire - Set of convenient classes to use PipeWire in Qt projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jgrulich@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/kpipewire/kpipewire.spec SRPM URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/kpipewire/kpipewire-5.25.90-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: It is developed in C++ and it's main use target is QML components. As it's what's been useful, this framework focuses on graphical PipeWire features. If it was necessary, these could be included.
At the moment we offer two main components:
- KPipeWire: offers the main components to connect to and render PipeWire into your app. - KPipeWireRecord: using FFmpeg, helps to record a PipeWire video stream into a file. Fedora Account System Username: jgrulich
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
Jan Grulich jgrulich@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |marc@marcdeop.com Alias| |kpipewire Blocks| |656997 (kde-reviews)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
marcdeop@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |marcdeop@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #1 from marcdeop@fedoraproject.org --- Can we use %autosetup instead of %setup ? Pretty please?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
--- Comment #2 from Jan Grulich jgrulich@redhat.com --- (In reply to marcdeop from comment #1)
Can we use %autosetup instead of %setup ? Pretty please?
Fixed.
Spec URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/kpipewire/kpipewire.spec SRPM URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/kpipewire/kpipewire-5.25.90-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
marcdeop@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? QA Contact|extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |marcdeop@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
marcdeop@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QA Contact|marcdeop@fedoraproject.org |extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |marcdeop@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
--- Comment #3 from marcdeop@fedoraproject.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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: "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/kpipewire/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/pipewire [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde, /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org, /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/pipewire [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files -------------------- kpipewire: /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/pipewire/libKPipeWireDeclarative.so kpipewire: /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/pipewire/record/libKPipeWireRecordDeclarative.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma/5.25.90/kpipewire-5.25.90.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aa7f9f7618bf49281a1881c792edd3666277b732d5ff29b265e43e753662653c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aa7f9f7618bf49281a1881c792edd3666277b732d5ff29b265e43e753662653c
Requires -------- kpipewire (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kf5-filesystem ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit) libKPipeWire.so.5()(64bit) libKPipeWireRecord.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libavcodec.so.59()(64bit) libavcodec.so.59(LIBAVCODEC_59)(64bit) libavformat.so.59()(64bit) libavformat.so.59(LIBAVFORMAT_59)(64bit) libavutil.so.57()(64bit) libavutil.so.57(LIBAVUTIL_57)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdrm.so.2()(64bit) libepoxy.so.0()(64bit) libgbm.so.1()(64bit) libpipewire-0.3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libswscale.so.6()(64bit) libswscale.so.6(LIBSWSCALE_6)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
kpipewire-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) kpipewire(x86-64) libKPipeWire.so.5()(64bit) libKPipeWireRecord.so.5()(64bit)
kpipewire-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
kpipewire-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- kpipewire: kpipewire kpipewire(x86-64) libKPipeWire.so.5()(64bit) libKPipeWireDeclarative.so()(64bit) libKPipeWireRecord.so.5()(64bit) libKPipeWireRecordDeclarative.so()(64bit)
kpipewire-devel: cmake(KPipeWire) cmake(kpipewire) kpipewire-devel kpipewire-devel(x86-64)
kpipewire-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kpipewire-debuginfo kpipewire-debuginfo(x86-64) libKPipeWire.so.5.25.90-5.25.90-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libKPipeWireDeclarative.so-5.25.90-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libKPipeWireRecord.so.5.25.90-5.25.90-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libKPipeWireRecordDeclarative.so-5.25.90-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
kpipewire-debugsource: kpipewire-debugsource kpipewire-debugsource(x86-64)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
--- Comment #4 from marcdeop@fedoraproject.org --- I veryfied package builds on Mock.
Only one little thing:
%dir %{_includedir}/KPipeWire %{_includedir}/KPipeWire/
Probably is generating this warning:
RPM build warnings: File listed twice: /usr/include/KPipeWire
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
--- Comment #5 from Jan Grulich jgrulich@redhat.com --- (In reply to marcdeop from comment #4)
I veryfied package builds on Mock.
Only one little thing:
%dir %{_includedir}/KPipeWire %{_includedir}/KPipeWire/
Probably is generating this warning:
RPM build warnings: File listed twice: /usr/include/KPipeWire
Fixed.
Spec URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/kpipewire/kpipewire.spec SRPM URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/kpipewire/kpipewire-5.25.90-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
marcdeop@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
marcdeop@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kpipewire
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127961
marcdeop@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |COMPLETED Last Closed| |2023-03-09 20:44:11
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com