https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
Bug ID: 2323868 Summary: Review Request: opustags - Ogg Opus tags editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mkoncek@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/opustags/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/opustags/fedora-r... Fedora Account System Username: mkoncek Description: Opustags allows you to view and edit Ogg Opus comments. Itsupports the following features: * interactive editing using your preferred text editor, * batch editing with command-line flags, * tags exporting and importing through text files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8213584 (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=2323868
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/opustags/2323868-opustags/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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. [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: [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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) [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:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fmang/opustags/archive/refs/tags/1.10.1.tar.gz#/opustags-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 703096e9c41481e30ab90eefdd8fafc4c3a138998b3f8281aa4f023e7058bc86 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 703096e9c41481e30ab90eefdd8fafc4c3a138998b3f8281aa4f023e7058bc86
Requires -------- opustags (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libogg.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
opustags-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
opustags-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- opustags: opustags opustags(x86-64)
opustags-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) opustags-debuginfo opustags-debuginfo(x86-64)
opustags-debugsource: opustags-debugsource opustags-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/opustags/2323868-opustags/srpm/opustags.spec 2024-11-08 20:33:14.509099728 +0300 +++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/opustags/2323868-opustags/srpm/review-opustags/srpm-unpacked/opustags.spec 2024-11-08 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## 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 + Name: opustags Version: 1.10.1 @@ -55,3 +65,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Nov 08 2024 John Doe packager@example.com - 1.10.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n opustags Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Python, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please change %autosetup -p1 -C to %autosetup -p1 b) Please change Source0: https://github.com/fmang/opustags/archive/refs/tags/%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz#/%... to Source: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz as the sources no longer need to be numbered. c) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125636848 d) Approved. Please fix at least point a before import. e) Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322079 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
--- Comment #3 from Marián Konček mkoncek@redhat.com --- Applied both a) and b) changes: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/opustags/fedora-4...
e) I am sorry, but I have zero experience with Python packages and not much spare time.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
Marián Konček mkoncek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #4 from Marián Konček mkoncek@redhat.com --- Hi, can you please re-review this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Had been positively reviewed. Sorry did not change flag to post. Let me know if anything else is needed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/opustags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-22a67a653e (opustags-1.10.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-22a67a653e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a0f2978a5e (opustags-1.10.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a0f2978a5e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-22a67a653e has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-22a67a653e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-22a67a653e
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=2323868
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a0f2978a5e has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-a0f2978a5e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a0f2978a5e
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=2323868
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-12-14 01:41:27
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a0f2978a5e (opustags-1.10.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2323868
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-22a67a653e (opustags-1.10.1-1.fc40) 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