https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
Bug ID: 990278 Summary: Review Request: krfb - Desktop Sharing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdieter@math.unl.edu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdenetwork/krfb.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kdenetwork/krfb-4.10.97-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Desktop Sharing Fedora Account System Username: rdieter
Formerly part of kdenetwork monolithic package, upstream has split this out into it's own tarball for kde-4.11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |656997 (kde-reviews) Alias| |krfb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
Jan Grulich jgrulich@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jgrulich@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
--- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrulich@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in krfb See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in krfb-libs [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgrulich/rpmbuild/990278-krfb/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 296960 bytes in 10 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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 if there is such a file. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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 [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).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Jan Grulich jgrulich@redhat.com Found : Vendor: jgrulich [!]: 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]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: krfb-4.10.97-1.fc19.i686.rpm krfb-libs-4.10.97-1.fc19.i686.rpm krfb.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Runtime -> Run time, Run-time, Rudiment krfb.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krfb krfb-libs.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Runtime -> Run time, Run-time, Rudiment krfb-libs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Runtime -> Run time, Run-time, Rudiment krfb-libs.i686: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
I see only two issues from fedora-review: [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
This was discussed in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655844, but without conclusion.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
It seems that upstream doesn't provide a license file in tarball so we should contact maintainer of krfb.
Rpmlint seems to be okay
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Depends On| |655844 Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jgrulich@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- I'd argue that we'll just have to grandfather the old/bundled code. We already ship krfb *now*, and resolving this properly will take more time, effort, and collaboration will the respective upstreams. (fyi, vino bundles modified libvncserver code exactly the same as krfb does, though I cannot find any bugs tracking that one atm).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
Jan Grulich jgrulich@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jan Grulich jgrulich@redhat.com --- License file is in tarball, just add %doc COPYING COPYING.DOC (can be done during the import). APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: krfb Short Description: Desktop sharing Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek Branches: f18 f19 f20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2013-08-22 11:53:56
--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- imported
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990278 Bug 990278 depends on bug 655844, which changed state.
Bug 655844 Summary: krfb: bundled libvncserver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655844
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla