https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
Bug ID: 1309703 Summary: Review Request: libratbag - a library to configure programmable mice Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: btissoir@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-0.2-4.fc23.src.rpm
Description: libratbag is a library that allows to configure programmable mice. The library aims at being generic and currently supports quite some Logitech mice, a Roccat, an Etekcity and some developers are working at enabling different brands.
Fedora Account System Username: bentiss
Hi,
I just pushed out libratbag 0.2 yesterday. I think it would be good for Fedora to ship it the sooner so that the desktop guys can work on some UI for KDE and Gnome.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |peter.hutterer@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer@redhat.com --- Couple of issues with the spec file:
summary should be capitalized correctly, it's currently a mix of upper and lowercase
no blank line after Summary
That Source0 is a bit odd, looks like https://github.com/libratbag/libratbag/archive/v0.2.tar.gz is sufficient?
BuildRequires: mtdev-devel?
IMO we should package libratbag/liblur as separate packages
Typo in the last changelog msg, but best to compress them into a single "Initial package" with a -1 release anyway.
rpmlint says: libratbag.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-tools-remove-no-install-flag-for-lur-command.patch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |peter.hutterer@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Tissoires btissoir@redhat.com --- Updating the bug with my latest changes, I will need more upstream first before actually have a Fedora-ready package.
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v2/libratbag.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v2/libratbag-0.2-1.fc...
(In reply to Peter Hutterer from comment #1)
summary should be capitalized correctly, it's currently a mix of upper and lowercase
done
no blank line after Summary
removed
That Source0 is a bit odd, looks like https://github.com/libratbag/libratbag/archive/v0.2.tar.gz is sufficient?
I used the ps2emu rename Lyude is making, but the way I do it in hid-replay is actually simpler: https://github.com/libratbag/%%7Bname%7D/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D...
BuildRequires: mtdev-devel?
oops, removed
IMO we should package libratbag/liblur as separate packages
OK. I tried to make it in this version: liblur gets its own package (-n in %package). It feels weird to not have a separate package for it, so I'd like some input here. An other solution is to not use the '-n' which gives libratbag-liblur as package name, which is less than optimal.
Typo in the last changelog msg, but best to compress them into a single "Initial package" with a -1 release anyway.
OK, done.
rpmlint says: libratbag.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-tools-remove-no-install-flag-for-lur-command.patch
That's because I use the "git am %{patches}" snippet :(
Anyway, I think I'll just release a new version of libratbag when upstream adds proper versioning for liblur and documentation of the 2 tools we provide (lur-command and ratbag-command).
Also, should I also build and ship the documentation we generate? (in a -doc package?)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- bentiss's scratch build of libratbag-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23-candidate completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13096326
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Tissoires btissoir@redhat.com --- Resurrecting the package request:
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v3/libratbag.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v3/libratbag-0.7-1.fc...
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer@redhat.com ---
rpmlint libinput libratbag-0.7-1.fc27.src.rpm libratbag.spec
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
scratch build succeeded for F26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19405965
Add this bug number to the changelog please, it makes it easier to find in the future.
You don't appear to be shipping the documentation (good), so you should just disable it and drop the dependencies. We can do that on the next build though.
Otherwise it looks good, review set to ACCEPT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #6 from Benjamin Tissoires btissoir@redhat.com --- (In reply to Peter Hutterer from comment #5)
Add this bug number to the changelog please, it makes it easier to find in the future.
done
You don't appear to be shipping the documentation (good), so you should just disable it and drop the dependencies. We can do that on the next build though.
OK, done locally.
Otherwise it looks good, review set to ACCEPT
Thanks. Shouldn't you also add the result of fedora-review here? (or this might have changed from last time).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #7 from Stephen Kitt skitt@redhat.com --- (In reply to Peter Hutterer from comment #5)
You don't appear to be shipping the documentation (good), so you should just disable it and drop the dependencies. We can do that on the next build though.
Just curious, why "(good)"? Is the documentation currently unworthy of being shipped?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #8 from Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer@redhat.com --- it's developer documentation only (doxygen), so it's better to build it locally from the git sources because that's what you'd have to develop against anyway. To the user, there's little point to install that package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #9 from Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[NOTE: not sure what happened there, works fine from the koji build, some issue with mock on my system]
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in liblur , liblur-devel , libratbag-debuginfo [Note: False positive, liblur is independent of libratbag] [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.1 starting (python version = 3.6.1)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1 Finish: chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/libratbag-devel-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/liblur-devel-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/libratbag-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/liblur-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/libratbag-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M f1e886100d454b7e9b5f62ad3c921caa -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v$ --setenv=LANG=en_AU.utf8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/libratbag-devel-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/liblur-devel-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/libratbag-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/liblur-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm /home/whot/tmp/2017-05-09-Tue/1309703-libratbag/results/libratbag-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libratbag-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm libratbag-devel-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm liblur-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm liblur-devel-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm libratbag-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm libratbag-0.7-1.fc27.src.rpm libratbag.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id libratbag.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id libratbag-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libratbag-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblur.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Logitech -> Technologist liblur.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US un -> UN, nu, in liblur.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblur.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id liblur.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id liblur.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lur-command liblur-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib liblur-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Requires -------- liblur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig 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) liblur.so.3()(64bit) liblur.so.3(LIBLUR_0.4.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
liblur-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config liblur(x86-64) liblur.so.3()(64bit)
libratbag (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libevdev.so.2()(64bit) libevdev.so.2(LIBEVDEV_1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libratbag.so.4()(64bit) libratbag.so.4(LIBRATBAG_0.5.0)(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libratbag-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libratbag(x86-64) libratbag.so.4()(64bit)
libratbag-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- liblur: liblur liblur(x86-64) liblur.so.3()(64bit) liblur.so.3(LIBLUR_0.4.0)(64bit)
liblur-devel: liblur-devel liblur-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(liblur)
libratbag: libratbag libratbag(x86-64) libratbag.so.4()(64bit) libratbag.so.4(LIBRATBAG_0.5.0)(64bit)
libratbag-devel: libratbag-devel libratbag-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libratbag)
libratbag-debuginfo: libratbag-debuginfo libratbag-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libratbag/libratbag/archive/v0.7/libratbag-0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 799efcee2f55c81165b84e575634708e76579d4c79727162b122ad285eba037c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 799efcee2f55c81165b84e575634708e76579d4c79727162b122ad285eba037c
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1309703 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libratbag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-89bc5fe09c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9e979f1a58
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-83dadeb50c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9e979f1a58
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-83dadeb50c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-89bc5fe09c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-05-17 17:03:07
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libratbag-0.8-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla