https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Bug ID: 2041267 Summary: Review Request: kpeoplevcard - Expose VCard contacts to KPeople Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: thunderbirdtr@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/mobile-plasma-phonebook/raw/main/f/kpeoplevcard/kpeoplevca... SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/mobile-plasma-phonebook/blob/main/f/kpeoplevcard/kpeoplevc... Description: Expose VCard contacts to KPeople Fedora Account System Username: thunderbirdtr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Oleg Girko ol+redhat@infoserver.lv changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ol+redhat@infoserver.lv
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Girko ol+redhat@infoserver.lv --- I've built and installed this package. Essentially, it provides a plugin "/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople/datasource/KPeopleVCard.so", and devel subpackage contains just cmake configuration file.
But "/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople/datasource" and "/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople" directories are owned by ktp-common-internals package that is not required by this package. As a result, the plugin is installed in a directory that is not owned by any package (unless ktp-common-internals is already installed).
On the other hand, this package seems to be a plugin for kf5-kpeople, and kf5-kpeople is required by this package through "libKF5PeopleBackend.so.5()(64bit)" virtual capability. However, "/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople" is not owned by kf5-kpeople.
Could you please clarify this situation? Is it a bug in kf5-kpeople that it doesn't own its plugin directory? Or does this package actually provide a plugin for KDE Telepathy?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Nicolas Fella nicolas.fella@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nicolas.fella@gmx.de
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Fella nicolas.fella@gmx.de --- I don't quite understand what "owning" means in this context, but it sounds to me like kf5-kpeople should own /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople
kpeoplevcard provides a plugin for KPeople, and ktp is a user/consumer of kpeople
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |justin.zobel@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com --- (In reply to Nicolas Fella from comment #2)
I don't quite understand what "owning" means in this context, but it sounds to me like kf5-kpeople should own /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople
kpeoplevcard provides a plugin for KPeople, and ktp is a user/consumer of kpeople
Should kpeople also own the "datasource" subdirectory or is does that belong to ktp-common-internals?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
--- Comment #4 from Justin Zobel justin.zobel@gmail.com --- Neither Arch or Alpine kpeoplevcard package depend on the ktp-common-internals directly.
I think the following directories should be owned by kf5-kpeople instead of ktp-common-internals:
- %dir %{_kf5_qtplugindir}/kpeople/ - %dir %{_kf5_qtplugindir}/kpeople/actions - %dir %{_kf5_qtplugindir}/kpeople/datasource - %dir %{_kf5_qtplugindir}/kpeople/widgets
I believe ktp-common-internals already depends on kf5-kpeople via symbols so this should be fine.
Then this package can move forward only owning the files it puts in the directories.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
marcdeop@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |marcdeop@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #5 from marcdeop@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Justin Zobel from comment #4)
Neither Arch or Alpine kpeoplevcard package depend on the ktp-common-internals directly.
I think the following directories should be owned by kf5-kpeople instead of ktp-common-internals:
- %dir %{_kf5_qtplugindir}/kpeople/
- %dir %{_kf5_qtplugindir}/kpeople/actions
- %dir %{_kf5_qtplugindir}/kpeople/datasource
- %dir %{_kf5_qtplugindir}/kpeople/widgets
I believe ktp-common-internals already depends on kf5-kpeople via symbols so this should be fine.
Then this package can move forward only owning the files it puts in the directories.
I think what @justin says is right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Simon Redman simon@ergotech.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |simon@ergotech.com
--- Comment #6 from Simon Redman simon@ergotech.com --- What is the next step to move this package forward? From my understanding of the discussion, it sounds like this package is correct but either kpeople or ktp-common-internals has an issue.
The lack of this package causes misbehavior in KDE Connect, because the SMS app can't display contact information unless the user builds kpeoplevcard from source.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tdawson@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- I have created a pull requests on kf5-kpeople having it own the directories, so this review can move forward. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kf5-kpeople/pull-request/1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Onuralp Sezer thunderbirdtr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |thunderbirdtr@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from Onuralp Sezer thunderbirdtr@gmail.com --- I accept the request I'll re-check the spec file and move forward to it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
--- Comment #9 from Onuralp Sezer thunderbirdtr@gmail.com --- (In reply to Onuralp Sezer from comment #8)
I accept the request I'll re-check the spec file and move forward to it.
"merge request*"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tdawson@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- ISSUES ====== - No owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/KF5PeopleVCard In the devel packages add %dir %{_kf5_libdir}/cmake/KF5PeopleVCard/
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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. MANUAL NOTE: .so file 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/quake/review/2041267-kpeoplevcard/licensecheck.txt MANUAL NOTE: Checked all files. They are either covered by the COPYING license (LGPLv2+), or have the LGPLv2+ in them [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/KF5PeopleVCard [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople/datasource, /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople, /usr/lib64/cmake/KF5PeopleVCard MANUAL NOTE: plugin directories will be owned by kf5-kpeople MANUAL NOTE: /usr/lib64/cmake/KF5PeopleVCard needs to be owned, see ISSUES [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 [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 4
kpeoplevcard-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople/datasource/KPeopleVCard.so-0.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug kpeoplevcard-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib kpeoplevcard.x86_64: W: no-documentation kpeoplevcard-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation kpeoplevcard-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation kpeoplevcard-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kpeoplevcard-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople/datasource/KPeopleVCard.so-0.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople/datasource/KPeopleVCard.so-0.1-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'
kpeoplevcard-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/50/b443937e0a50be3a73b106dd64b013ccec4503 ../../../.build-id/50/b443937e0a50be3a73b106dd64b013ccec4503 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- kpeoplevcard: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kpeople/datasource/KPeopleVCard.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://download.kde.org/stable/kpeoplevcard/0.1/kpeoplevcard-0.1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8de5df5a3abeed2b13fc56f33d1846ae5b90adfc2127bc1b0ffa5e300b7663c3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8de5df5a3abeed2b13fc56f33d1846ae5b90adfc2127bc1b0ffa5e300b7663c3
Requires -------- kpeoplevcard (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libKF5Contacts.so.5()(64bit) libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit) libKF5PeopleBackend.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) libc.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
kpeoplevcard-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) kpeoplevcard(x86-64)
kpeoplevcard-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
kpeoplevcard-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- kpeoplevcard: kpeoplevcard kpeoplevcard(x86-64)
kpeoplevcard-devel: cmake(KF5PeopleVCard) cmake(kf5peoplevcard) kpeoplevcard-devel kpeoplevcard-devel(x86-64)
kpeoplevcard-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kpeoplevcard-debuginfo kpeoplevcard-debuginfo(x86-64)
kpeoplevcard-debugsource: kpeoplevcard-debugsource kpeoplevcard-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2041267 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com --- Because there is just one simple fix, I'm going to mark this as approved. Just be sure to add that directory to the devel package before you build it. Also, please add the kde-sig as admin after it is created.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kpeoplevcard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-05a8b3609e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-05a8b3609e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041267
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-05a8b3609e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-05a8b3609e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-05a8b3609e
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=2041267
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-09-12 17:44:30
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-05a8b3609e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com