https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Bug ID: 1835958 Summary: Review Request: openrgb - Open source RGB lighting control Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: r3pek@r3pek.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
First package so I'm gonna need a sponsor here ;)
spec and srpm are uploading in copr:r3pek/OpenRPM
Description: Open source RGB lighting control that doesn't depend on manufacturer software. ASUS, ASRock, Corsair, G.Skill, Gigabyte, HyperX, MSI, Razer, ThermalTake, and more supported.
Fedora Account System Username: r3pek
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Carlos Mogas da Silva r3pek@r3pek.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Carlos Mogas da Silva r3pek@r3pek.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
First package so I'm gonna need a sponsor here ;)
spec and srpm are uploading in copr:r3pek/OpenRPM
Description: Open source RGB lighting control that doesn't depend on manufacturer software. ASUS, ASRock, Corsair, G.Skill, Gigabyte, HyperX, MSI, Razer, ThermalTake, and more supported.
Fedora Account System Username: r3pek
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
spec and srpm are uploading in copr:r3pek/OpenRGB
You *need* to provide direct links to the spec and the srpm.
That being said, after digging out the spec from copr:
%global debug_package %{nil}
This disables generating debug packages, which is generally a no-no in Fedora. Try removing this line and building the package again. If it fails, you'll need to dig around and figure out how to build the program with debuginfo enabled. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_debuginfo_packag...
BuildRequires: libusb-devel libstdc++-devel qt5-qtbase-devel desktop-file-utils
You need to add a BuildRequires: on "gcc-c++". While it's installed by default in the copr buildroot, this is *not* the case for koji (i.e. the builder for official Fedora packages).
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} install -Dpm 755 %{_name} \ %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{_name}
Passing -D to install makes it create directories as needed along the way, so either remove the -D flag and keep "mkdir -p" above (though arguably it'd be better to use "install -d"), or keep the -D flag and remove the unnecessary mkdir call.
#doc mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{_name} install -Dpm 644 README.md \ %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{_name}/README.md
Instead of copying the readme during %install, just use the "%doc" marker inside the %files section (it works basically the same as %license).
%files %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/%{_name}.png
This necessitates a Requires: on "hicolor-icon-theme".
Also, looking at the upstream repository:
- dependencies/
- ColorWheel
- NVFC
- hidapi
- inpout32_1501
- libe131/src
- libusb-1.0.22
hidapi and libusb are available in Fedora as separate packages, so it'd be highly recommended to remove those bundled dependencies and build the program against the system-provided libraries.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
--- Comment #2 from Carlos Mogas da Silva r3pek@r3pek.org --- Hi Artur!
Thanks for taking time to review this package.
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #1)
spec and srpm are uploading in copr:r3pek/OpenRGB
You *need* to provide direct links to the spec and the srpm.
Oops. Sorry about that :-/
Updated versions: spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/r3pek/OpenRGB/fedora-31-x... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/r3pek/OpenRGB/fedora-31-x...
That being said, after digging out the spec from copr:
%global debug_package %{nil}
This disables generating debug packages, which is generally a no-no in Fedora. Try removing this line and building the package again. If it fails, you'll need to dig around and figure out how to build the program with debuginfo enabled. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ #_debuginfo_packages
Cleaned that up and built fine with mockbuild
BuildRequires: libusb-devel libstdc++-devel qt5-qtbase-devel desktop-file-utils
You need to add a BuildRequires: on "gcc-c++". While it's installed by default in the copr buildroot, this is *not* the case for koji (i.e. the builder for official Fedora packages).
Good info ;) thx
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} install -Dpm 755 %{_name} \ %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{_name}
Passing -D to install makes it create directories as needed along the way, so either remove the -D flag and keep "mkdir -p" above (though arguably it'd be better to use "install -d"), or keep the -D flag and remove the unnecessary mkdir call.
Cleaned it up (kept the -D and removed mkdir)
#doc mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{_name} install -Dpm 644 README.md \ %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{_name}/README.md
Instead of copying the readme during %install, just use the "%doc" marker inside the %files section (it works basically the same as %license).
Nice! haven't read about %doc. Using it now
%files %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/%{_name}.png
This necessitates a Requires: on "hicolor-icon-theme".
Added
Also, looking at the upstream repository:
- dependencies/
- ColorWheel
- NVFC
- hidapi
- inpout32_1501
- libe131/src
- libusb-1.0.22
hidapi and libusb are available in Fedora as separate packages, so it'd be highly recommended to remove those bundled dependencies and build the program against the system-provided libraries.
Yeah. the libusb one is actually just used in the Windows version of the app, but upstream was using bundled hidapi on linux too. I just made a patch that builds the package with the system libhidapi-libusb (and will try go get fixed upstream)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Consider providing an Appdata file: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
Looks pretty good to me otherwise
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]: 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", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License (v3)", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Public domain". 291 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/openrgb/review-openrgb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: openrgb-0.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm openrgb-debuginfo-0.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm openrgb-debugsource-0.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm openrgb-0.2-2.fc33.src.rpm openrgb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OpenRGB openrgb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: OpenRGB-release_0.2.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mike@cchtml.com Flags| |needinfo?(r3pek@r3pek.org)
--- Comment #4 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- Hi, Carlos. Are you still pursuing this review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Carlos Mogas da Silva r3pek@r3pek.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(r3pek@r3pek.org) |
--- Comment #5 from Carlos Mogas da Silva r3pek@r3pek.org --- (In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #4)
Hi, Carlos. Are you still pursuing this review?
Yes Michael
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
--- Comment #6 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- Great! I recommend that you post to the 'devel' mailing list and advertise this review to get a sponsor's attention.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel%40lists.fedoraproject.or...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ego.cordatus@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo+
--- Comment #7 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#stalled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835958
Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Last Closed| |2022-02-02 16:58:57
--- Comment #8 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2049772 ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com