[Bug 1694295] New: Review Request: gwe - System utility designed to provide information of NVIDIA card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
Bug ID: 1694295 Summary: Review Request: gwe - System utility designed to provide information of NVIDIA card Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.cordatus@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe-0.12.3-6.fc30.src.rpm
Description: GWE is a GTK system utility designed to provide information, control the fans and overclock your NVIDIA video card and graphics processor.
Fedora Account System Username: atim
---
This app in Popular Apps on flathub.
But this blocking issue for now https://gitlab.com/leinardi/gwe/issues/52
Should we just wait when PR will be merged or can do something in this case to include this package in official Fedora repos?
Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/gwe/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Never add this to your SPEC unless good reasons:
%global debug_package %{nil}
- Please use the package name instead
BuildRequires: libappstream-glib BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
- I find it curious that you depend on these libraries for the build process, and not the devel ones:
BuildRequires: libdazzle BuildRequires: libnotify
Have you tried removing these BR? Should they not be RR only?
I'd wait for the PR. Packaging with bundled xlib is not okay.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Also package should probably be noarch.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #3 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- You right, this BR packages not needed.
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe-0.12.3-7.fc30.src.rpm
So now waiting for PR merge... ⏳
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Are you interested in a review swap? Please take a look into bug #1788327 or bug #1788270.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to Artem from comment #3)
You right, this BR packages not needed.
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe-0.12.3-7.fc30.src.rpm
So now waiting for PR merge... ⏳
python-xlib has a new release, could you bring it to Fedora and unbundle?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #6 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
(In reply to Artem from comment #3)
You right, this BR packages not needed.
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe-0.12.3-7.fc30.src.rpm
So now waiting for PR merge... ⏳
python-xlib has a new release, could you bring it to Fedora and unbundle?
Yeah, i seen you pinged upstream about it. I'll try to build new python-xlib and send PR to src.fedoraproject.org.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #7 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- python-xlib PR: Update to 0.26 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xlib/pull-request/1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #8 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- @eclipseo, good news: python-xlib 0.26 pushed to F31 [1] and i pushed python-rx 3.0.1 for F31 as well. We can package GWE now.
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-dd3dbcb6c1
---
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gwe/fedora-rawhide-x86_...
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gwe/fedora-rawhide-x86_...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #9 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe.spec
https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe-0.13.3-5.fc31.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |vitaly@easycoding.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vitaly@easycoding.org Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #10 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/dbus-1 [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/gwe(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/gwe/Xlib(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/gwe/__pycache__(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/gwe/presenter(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/gwe/presenter/__pycache__(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/gwe/util(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/gwe/util/__pycache__(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/gwe/util/desktop(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/gwe/util/desktop/__pycache__(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/gwe/view(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/lib/python3.8/site- packages/gwe/view/__pycache__(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/share/doc/gwe(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/share/gwe(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,), /usr/share/licenses/gwe(defaulting, C, to, Failed, set, locale,) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 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 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
Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gwe-0.13.3-5.fc32.noarch.rpm gwe-0.13.3-5.fc32.src.rpm gwe.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdg -> bldg gwe.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US md -> MD, Md, ms gwe.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gwe gwe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdg -> bldg gwe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user gwe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US md -> MD, Md, ms 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gwe.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdg -> bldg gwe.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US md -> MD, Md, ms gwe.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://gitlab.com/leinardi/gwe <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> gwe.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gwe 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/leinardi/gwe/-/archive/0.13.3/gwe-0.13.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c61776f0a2fe3335a4c865c690b59f813e46bb28bc2ecf5b1afd687c3df5815 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c61776f0a2fe3335a4c865c690b59f813e46bb28bc2ecf5b1afd687c3df5815
Requires -------- gwe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 hicolor-icon-theme python(abi) python3-gobject python3-injector python3-matplotlib-gtk3 python3-peewee python3-py3nvml python3-pyxdg python3-requests python3-rx python3-xlib
Provides -------- gwe: application() application(com.leinardi.gwe.desktop) gwe metainfo() metainfo(com.leinardi.gwe.appdata.xml)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1694295 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/services
Requires: dbus-common
This minor issue can be fixed during importing to SCM. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
--- Comment #12 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gwe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-e224e7e7e2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e224e7e7e2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-02-15 02:17:28
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gwe-0.13.3-6.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com