2:38 p.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Bug ID: 2241551
Summary: Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/jstest-gtk.spec
SRPM URL:
https://atim.fedorapeople.org/jstest-gtk-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc39....
Description:
jstest-gtk is a simple joystick tester based on Gtk+. It provides you with a
list of attached joysticks, a way to display which buttons and axis are
pressed, a way to remap axis and buttons and a way to calibrate your joystick.
Fedora Account System Username: atim
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
2:38 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
--- Comment #1 from Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com> ---
This package built on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106922554
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
8:52 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
%global date 20230524
-> this hould not be the date of the commit, but the date where you took the
snapshot.
- %{_mandir}/*1/*.1*
please don't glob so much.
LGTM otherwise, package approved.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or
generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/jstest-gtk/review-jstest-
gtk/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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 2947 bytes in 1 files.
[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.
[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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: jstest-gtk-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
jstest-gtk-debuginfo-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
jstest-gtk-debugsource-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
jstest-gtk-0.1.0-20230524git17956d2.1.fc40.src.rpm
==============================================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
==============================================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpo6m433p2')]
checks: 31, packages: 4
===============================================================================================================
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.4 s
===============================================================================================================
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
9:25 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
--- Comment #3 from Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #2)
%global date 20230524
-> this hould not be the date of the commit, but the date where you took
the snapshot.
Thanks! Can we document this in docs.fedoraproject.org? Last time when i ask
about this Fedora maintainers they are still have no clear opinion on this and
said as you wish. Date of the commit look more logically here IMO. Would be
nice to document this strictly.
- %{_mandir}/*1/*.1*
please don't glob so much.
I am always trying to find a balance between unnecessary chore and some kind of
checks/protect from upstream mistakes in future updates. For all this time i've
seen upstream mistakenly install in wrong dirs man{1-9} but what else could go
wrong in this case? Also nice to document with examples and gotchas.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
9:38 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jstest-gtk
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
11:51 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2023-4a18e8a37d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4a18e8a37d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
11:52 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED
Last Closed| |2023-10-01 16:52:44
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2023-4a18e8a37d has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
2:49 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2023-1ca12ceeda has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1ca12ceeda
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
7:01 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
--- Comment #8 from Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com> ---
this hould not be the date of the commit, but the date where you took
the snapshot.
We need come to an agreement here. Fedora docs said that this should be a **the
last modification of the source code**
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_sn...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
1:25 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2241551] Review Request: jstest-gtk - Simple joystick tester
based on Gtk+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2023-1ca12ceeda has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241551
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...
202
days inactive
236
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com