[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(a)fedoraproject.org
          Reporter: robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com
        QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: package-review(a)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....
Description: Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland.
Fedora Account System Username: cheeselee


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Robin Lee <robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com&gt; 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
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Tim Semeijn <tim(a)goat.re&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tim(a)goat.re



--- Comment #1 from Tim Semeijn <tim(a)goat.re&gt; ---
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.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847



--- Comment #2 from Robin Lee <robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
(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.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847



--- Comment #3 from Tim Semeijn <tim(a)goat.re&gt; ---
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


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Felix Wang <topazus(a)outlook.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org    |topazus(a)outlook.com
                 CC|                            |topazus(a)outlook.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #4 from Felix Wang <topazus(a)outlook.com&gt; ---
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/wayla...

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.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847



--- Comment #5 from Robin Lee <robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #4)
>  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-
>  protocols.spec 
Done.

>  
>  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. 
Done. The description is
updated.

>  
>  3.
>  > 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.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Felix Wang <topazus(a)outlook.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Felix Wang <topazus(a)outlook.com&gt; ---
I reckon it is pretty fine for me. Approved.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deepin-wayland-protocols


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
FEDORA-2023-f7bb8db7f0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f7bb8db7f0


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

[Bug 2232847] Review Request: deepin-wayland-protocols - Deepin Specific Protocols for Wayland

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2023-11-06 13:31:26



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; ---
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.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232847

Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...