https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
Bug ID: 2060326 Summary: Review Request: qpwgraph - PipeWire Graph Qt GUI Interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgansser@netcom-mail.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/qpwgraph.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/qpwgraph-0.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: qpwgraph is a graph manager dedicated to PipeWire, using the Qt C++ framework, based and pretty much like the same of QjackCtl. Fedora Account System Username: martinkg
%changelog * Wed Mar 02 2022 Martin Gansser martinkg@fedoraproject.org - 0.2.1-1 - Initial Build
rawhide koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83593557
rpmlint -v /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/qpwgraph-0.2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/qpwgraph-0.2.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/qpwgraph-debugsource-0.2.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/qpwgraph-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 958 blocks 12560 blocks 916 blocks 162 blocks ============================================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================================= rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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
qpwgraph-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/qpwgraph-0.2.1-1.fc35.x86_64.debug This executable should be stripped from debugging symbols, in order to take less space and be loaded faster. This is usually done automatically at buildtime by rpm.
qpwgraph-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/qpwgraph-0.2.1-1.fc35.x86_64.debug The listed shared library doesn't include information about which other libraries the library was linked against.
qpwgraph.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qpwgraph Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
qpwgraph-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation qpwgraph-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
qpwgraph-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/11/63863d2bef6703dc106b11c4413d0caa35903b ../../../.build-id/11/63863d2bef6703dc106b11c4413d0caa35903b The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file based dependencies. Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is included in a package in this package's dependency chain.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de --- Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/qpwgraph.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/qpwgraph-0.2.2-1.fc35.src.rpm
%changelog * Thu Mar 03 2022 Martin Gansser martinkg@fedoraproject.org - 0.2.2-1 - Update to 0.2.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Initial spec review:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt6)
This is not an accurate dependency here, and you might get burned in the future because of it. Based on the CMakeLists, this is probably want you want:
BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6Core) BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6Gui) BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6Widgets) BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6Xml) BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6Network)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
--- Comment #4 from MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de --- ok, changed the dependencies, new package.
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/qpwgraph.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/qpwgraph-0.2.2-2.fc35.src.rpm
%changelog * Fri Mar 04 2022 Martin Gansser martinkg@fedoraproject.org - 0.2.2-2 - Use accurate dependency for qt6 packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- You're missing a runtime dependency on "shared-mime-info".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
--- Comment #6 from MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de --- Added Runtime dependencies, new package.
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/qpwgraph.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/qpwgraph-0.2.2-3.fc35.src.rpm
%changelog * Sun Mar 06 2022 Martin Gansser martinkg@fedoraproject.org - 0.2.2-3 - Add RR shared-mime-info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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 General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2060326-qpwgraph/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 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]: 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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/rncbc/qpwgraph/-/archive/v0.2.2/qpwgraph-v0.2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 98ba6c17d954013b5dd8b26afd22954f6541620033fe594163fccd3c60360c39 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 98ba6c17d954013b5dd8b26afd22954f6541620033fe594163fccd3c60360c39
Requires -------- qpwgraph (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.2)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) 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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpipewire-0.3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shared-mime-info
qpwgraph-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
qpwgraph-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- qpwgraph: application() application(org.rncbc.qpwgraph.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(org.rncbc.qpwgraph.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(application/x-qpwgraph-patchbay) qpwgraph qpwgraph(x86-64)
qpwgraph-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qpwgraph-debuginfo qpwgraph-debuginfo(x86-64)
qpwgraph-debugsource: qpwgraph-debugsource qpwgraph-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2060326 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, PHP, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Everything looks good, so...
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
--- Comment #9 from MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de --- Thanks for reviewing it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qpwgraph
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060326
MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2022-03-08 15:39:02
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org