[Bug 1725497] New: Review Request: libg15render - Library for rendering bitmaps for the Logitech G15 keyboard LCD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725497
Bug ID: 1725497 Summary: Review Request: libg15render - Library for rendering bitmaps for the Logitech G15 keyboard LCD Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hdegoede@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/libg15render.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/libg15render-1.3.0-0.1.svn316.fc30.src.... Description: libg15render is a library for rendering bitmaps in the format expected by the LCD screen on the Logitech G15 (and similar) keyboards.
Fedora Account System Username: jwrdegoede
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725497
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mhroncok@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725497
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- You can probably replace make %{?_smp_mflags} with %make_build.
One BuildRequire per line makes it easier for git diffs and blames, etc.. (however if you prefer multiple, that's fine).
Based on the recent unannounced bumps, you should probably not use %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files (however, if this is dead upstream, it is probably fine).
That said, are we OK with packaging dead upstream?
(running fedora-review)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725497
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Package is approved. Please se my notes in previous comment and apply them at will.
===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [x]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: libg15render-1.3.0-0.1.svn316.fc31.x86_64.rpm libg15render-devel-1.3.0-0.1.svn316.fc31.x86_64.rpm libg15render-debuginfo-1.3.0-0.1.svn316.fc31.x86_64.rpm libg15render-debugsource-1.3.0-0.1.svn316.fc31.x86_64.rpm libg15render-1.3.0-0.1.svn316.fc31.src.rpm libg15render.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libg15render/COPYING libg15render-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary g15fontconvert 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
That's fine.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libg15render-debuginfo-1.3.0-0.1.svn316.fc31.x86_64.rpm libg15render-devel-debuginfo-1.3.0-0.1.svn316.fc31.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Good.
Source checksums ---------------- ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/debian/pool/main/libg/libg15render/libg15render_1.3.0~svn316.orig.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50124bf451e27b32f4fd2e72b0eaac09f3b8a7c54375476ee81dfee84e9285be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50124bf451e27b32f4fd2e72b0eaac09f3b8a7c54375476ee81dfee84e9285be
Requires -------- libg15render (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libg15render-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libg15render(x86-64) libg15render.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libg15render-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libg15render-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- libg15render: libg15render libg15render(x86-64) libg15render.so.1()(64bit)
libg15render-devel: libg15render-devel libg15render-devel(x86-64)
libg15render-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libg15render-debuginfo libg15render-debuginfo(x86-64)
libg15render-debugsource: libg15render-debugsource libg15render-debugsource(x86-64)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725497
--- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Thank you for the quick review!
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1)
You can probably replace make %{?_smp_mflags} with %make_build.
Ack, will fix before import.
One BuildRequire per line makes it easier for git diffs and blames, etc.. (however if you prefer multiple, that's fine).
Based on the recent unannounced bumps, you should probably not use %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files (however, if this is dead upstream, it is probably fine).
Good point, I will make this versioned.
That said, are we OK with packaging dead upstream?
This does not parse external data, so no security risk AFAICT, other then that it is plain C so easy (for me) to maintain and not breaking all the time because of a changing language specification. It is as much "finished" as it is "dead" really and some of the keyboards which need this lib are still being sold, so IMHO it is good to have this in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725497
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libg15render
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725497
Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2019-07-01 21:32:52
--- Comment #5 from Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- Thank you all for your help.
This has been imported and build for f29+. I will bundle the f29 and f30 updates together with the lcdproc package update (when I have that ready), so lets close this.
@limb, I will review xsimd for you first thing tomorrow morning.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com