https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
Bug ID: 2151289 Summary: Review Request: numberstation - TOTP Authenticator application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lihis@lihis.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/blob/master/f/numberstation.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedor... Description: TOTP Authenticator application designed with mobile usage in mind Fedora Account System Username: lihis
This is my first package and I need a sponsor.
Package successfully built on COPR for F37 and Rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lihis/numberstation/build/5073138/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC| |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Correct URLs follow
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/raw/master/f/numberstation.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedor...
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=2151289
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pemensik@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- The source archive contains LICENSE file, but the spec does not use that file with %license LICENSE macro. That is required and blocker for the review.
%files must contain also: %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
Because it is GUI application, it should have .desktop file validated in %check section [1].
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_ins...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file.
===== 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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2151289-numberstation/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/numberstation, /usr/share/numberstation/numberstation [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/numberstation, /usr/share/numberstation/numberstation, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor [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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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 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: numberstation-1.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm numberstation-1.2.0-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/tmp9f13mhl3')] checks: 31, packages: 2
numberstation.spec:23: W: setup-not-quiet numberstation.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary numberstation numberstation.x86_64: E: no-binary numberstation.src: W: invalid-license GPLv3-or-later numberstation.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3-or-later numberstation.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy ============================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==============================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 1
numberstation.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary numberstation numberstation.x86_64: E: no-binary numberstation.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv3-or-later numberstation.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~martijnbraam/numberstation/archive/1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2c71368f4465ef439b0807dcea5ad246bb4ea5fc10fa9a1369d82f4e2a586f97 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2c71368f4465ef439b0807dcea5ad246bb4ea5fc10fa9a1369d82f4e2a586f97
Requires -------- numberstation (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libhandy python3-keyring python3-pyotp
Provides -------- numberstation: application() application(org.postmarketos.Numberstation.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(org.postmarketos.Numberstation.appdata.xml) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/otpauth) numberstation numberstation(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2151289 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Python, R, Haskell, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #4 from lihis@lihis.net --- Thanks for the review!
The issues are now fixed and the package can be reviewed again.
However, I'm not sure about the rpmlint error "E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy". If it is not explicitly required then the package does not automatically require it, which could cause issues if user has not yet installed a package which requires it (or installed it explicitly)? So should I ignore the error or remove the explicit dependency or something else?
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/raw/master/f/numberstation.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedor...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5252620 (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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #6 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- Missed the sub-directory under the "%{_datadir}/%{name}" so pushed once more.
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/raw/master/f/numberstation.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedor...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1939210 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1939210&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5252620 to 5255606
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5255606 (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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- It seems okay now, passing the review.
Please follow steps described in: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package...
to get sponsored.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vascom2@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- 1. Why %global debug_package %{nil} ?
2. Change %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name}.gresource %{_datadir}/%{name}/%{name}/*.py
to
%{_datadir}/%{name}
3. Add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
4. Add to %check section:
appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/org.postmarketos.Numberstation.appdata.xml And BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #11 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- 5. Change %setup -n %{name}-%{version} to %autosetup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #12 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- Thanks for the review!
- Why %global debug_package %{nil} ?
No reason, removed it.
- Change
I'm not sure about what you exactly want, could you elaborate?
- Add to %check section:
The appstream-data validation fails so included a patch fixing it and sent the patch to the upstream.
- Add
- Change %setup -n %{name}-%{version}
Added.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #13 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- 1. You must explay why explicitly disable debuginfo https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_debuginfo_packag...
If it is because package noarch than it is not needed. RPM will do it himself.
2. No need to describe each file and directory at %files section. You can simplify this and use only one string with top directory. All files and subdirectories in it will be added automatically.
4. Reporting to upstream good but until change not accepted by upstream you must use patch in sspec file and validate this xml.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #14 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net ---
- You must explay why explicitly disable debuginfo
Thanks for the link, now I know how to use it properly.
- No need to describe each file and directory at %files section ...
Okay, that's good to know :)
- Reporting to upstream good but until change not accepted by upstream you must use patch in sspec file and validate this xml.
Yes the patch is included and validation enabled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #15 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Seems good now.
I will sponsor you. What is your FAS login?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #16 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- Forgot to link latest SPRM:
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/numberstation/raw/master/f/numberstation.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lihis/numberstation/fedor...
I will sponsor you. What is your FAS login?
Thank you! It is: lihis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1942002 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1942002&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5255606 to 5430141
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5430141 (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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #19 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/numberstation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #21 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- SCM repository created and committed the sources for rawhide. Bodhi update seemed to trigger automatically: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9449c4062f. Should I also create f38 branch and commit to there also?
Is there anything else that should be done before closing of this issue?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
--- Comment #22 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- If you plan build and add to repos for other releases (f38, f37, f36, epel9...) you should request that branches.
You can close this ticket after rawhide build or after target release build.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2151289
Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-02-09 17:23:00
--- Comment #23 from Tomi Lähteenmäki lihis@lihis.net --- Okay, thanks for the help! Closing as I target rawhide and f38 when it is branched.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com