[Bug 2355687] New: Review Request: gattlib - Library to access GATT information from BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Bug ID: 2355687 Summary: Review Request: gattlib - Library to access GATT information from BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativo17@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/gattlib.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: GattLib is a library used to access Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) protocol of BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) devices. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- This replaces review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277280
Changes compared to the review:
- Newer version. - Documentation is built. - Shared object version is the version and the main library version is 0, so in case of udpates and no ABI change we don't need to rebuild dependent packages. - Examples are installed in /usr/bin with a gatt_ prefix instead of /usr/libexec/libgatt.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |davide@cavalca.name
--- Comment #2 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- *** Bug 2277280 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: pcre-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1128729 bytes in 23 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/gattlib/2355687- gattlib/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gattlib- examples [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1157120 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-devel-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-examples-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpd9ku0bbr')] checks: 32, packages: 4
gattlib-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_advertisement_data gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_ble_scan gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_discover gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_find_eddystone gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_nordic_uart gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_notification gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_read_write gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation gattlib.spec: W: no-%check-section gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.buildinfo gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings, 21 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gattlib-debuginfo-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-examples-debuginfo-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpsq94covn')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 checks: 32, packages: 5
gattlib-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_advertisement_data gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_ble_scan gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_discover gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_find_eddystone gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_nordic_uart gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_notification gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_read_write gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.buildinfo gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 53 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/archive/0.7.2/gattlib-0.7.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 23d43c15580e6a3863b76798d7e3ac93b99ff5bd2cbf78a8abc6ca7e3a136a02 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 23d43c15580e6a3863b76798d7e3ac93b99ff5bd2cbf78a8abc6ca7e3a136a02
Requires -------- gattlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gattlib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gattlib(x86-64) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit) pkgconf-pkg-config pkgconfig(glib-2.0)
gattlib-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- gattlib: gattlib gattlib(x86-64) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit)
gattlib-devel: gattlib-devel gattlib-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(gattlib)
gattlib-examples: gattlib-examples gattlib-examples(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2355687 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Perl, R, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Is it possible to use pcre2? b) Docs seem to use alabaster theme: https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/blob/master/docs/conf.py#L81 which is available: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-sphinx-theme-alabaster/python... python3-sphinx_lv2_theme is also available in Fedora and does not have javascript: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-sphinx_lv2_theme/ c) Are the hidden files packaged with the documentation needed? d) May consider running some of the examples as a smoke test and checking the error message produced. e) Is it possible to use bluez in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/bluez/bluez/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3)
a) Is it possible to use pcre2?
No, unfortunately not.
b) Docs seem to use alabaster theme: https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/blob/master/docs/conf.py#L81 which is available: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-sphinx-theme-alabaster/ python3-sphinx-theme-alabaster/ python3-sphinx_lv2_theme is also available in Fedora and does not have javascript: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-sphinx_lv2_theme/
Yes, that's a default Sphinx theme (https://alabaster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) and is pulled in already by the python3-sphinx package.
$ sudo dnf repoquery --requires python3-sphinx | grep alabaster (python3.13dist(alabaster) >= 0.7.14 with python3.13dist(alabaster) < 0.8)
c) Are the hidden files packaged with the documentation needed?
Yes, they are the CSS files, including the alabaster one.
d) May consider running some of the examples as a smoke test and checking the error message produced.
I thought about that, like in plutovg or plutosvg, but unfortunately all of those binaries do perform actual bluetooth commands (scans, write bits in Bluetooth devices - ex. turn off Valve's Lighthouses, etc.). Nothing that can be tested offline or without actual bluetooth controllers or targets.
e) Is it possible to use bluez in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/bluez/bluez/
What do you mean? Bluez is indeed one of the mandatory build requirements, you can't even build it without it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Just fyi, the only use for this package right now is to enable Lighthouse power management for SteamVR headsets with libsurvive.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Hi Benson, gentle reminder. Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai |fedora-review? |lplus.org) | Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #6)
Hi Benson, gentle reminder. Thanks.
Had not assigned myself this bug!!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- PCRE2 should work. See: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130934233 https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/pull/292
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Created attachment 2082771 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2082771&action=edit Patch to use pcre2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #4)
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3)
a) Is it possible to use pcre2?
No, unfortunately not.
It seems to build, but cannot test. Maybe wait for feedback from upstream? If the only reason is to use glib, Fedora uses pcre2-8 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glib2/blob/rawhide/f/glib2.spec#_31
b) Docs seem to use alabaster theme: https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/blob/master/docs/conf.py#L81 which is available: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-sphinx-theme-alabaster/ python3-sphinx-theme-alabaster/ python3-sphinx_lv2_theme is also available in Fedora and does not have javascript: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-sphinx_lv2_theme/
Yes, that's a default Sphinx theme (https://alabaster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) and is pulled in already by the python3-sphinx package.
$ sudo dnf repoquery --requires python3-sphinx | grep alabaster (python3.13dist(alabaster) >= 0.7.14 with python3.13dist(alabaster) < 0.8)
Ok. python3_sphinx_lv2_theme does not have javascript so would be nicer to package, but not blocking.
c) Are the hidden files packaged with the documentation needed?
Yes, they are the CSS files, including the alabaster one.
Ok.
d) May consider running some of the examples as a smoke test and checking the error message produced.
I thought about that, like in plutovg or plutosvg, but unfortunately all of those binaries do perform actual bluetooth commands (scans, write bits in Bluetooth devices - ex. turn off Valve's Lighthouses, etc.). Nothing that can be tested offline or without actual bluetooth controllers or targets.
Ok.
e) Is it possible to use bluez in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/bluez/bluez/
What do you mean? Bluez is indeed one of the mandatory build requirements, you can't even build it without it.
Sorry, error on my part.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #10)
It seems to build, but cannot test. Maybe wait for feedback from upstream? If the only reason is to use glib, Fedora uses pcre2-8 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glib2/blob/rawhide/f/glib2.spec#_31
Ok, let me try, thanks!
Worst case we remove the patch. Unfortunately upstream is not very active, so don't expect that to be looked anytime soon.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/gattlib.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc42.src.rpm
- Use PCRE 2 using patch in pull request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #13 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1128729 bytes in 23 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/gattlib/2355687- gattlib/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gattlib- examples [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1157120 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-devel-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-examples-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmphtyek3t_')] checks: 32, packages: 4
gattlib-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_advertisement_data gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_ble_scan gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_discover gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_find_eddystone gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_nordic_uart gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_notification gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_read_write gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation gattlib.spec: W: no-%check-section gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.buildinfo gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings, 21 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gattlib-debuginfo-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-examples-debuginfo-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp0vfv_8zp')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 checks: 32, packages: 5
gattlib-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_advertisement_data gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_ble_scan gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_discover gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_find_eddystone gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_nordic_uart gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_notification gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_read_write gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.buildinfo gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 53 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.5 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/archive/0.7.2/gattlib-0.7.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 23d43c15580e6a3863b76798d7e3ac93b99ff5bd2cbf78a8abc6ca7e3a136a02 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 23d43c15580e6a3863b76798d7e3ac93b99ff5bd2cbf78a8abc6ca7e3a136a02
Requires -------- gattlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gattlib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gattlib(x86-64) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit) pkgconf-pkg-config pkgconfig(glib-2.0)
gattlib-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- gattlib: gattlib gattlib(x86-64) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit)
gattlib-devel: gattlib-devel gattlib-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(gattlib)
gattlib-examples: gattlib-examples gattlib-examples(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2355687 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, R, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Perhaps the documentation can be put in a subpackage? b) If -DGATTLIB_PYTHON_INTERFACE=NO is changed to -DGATTLIB_PYTHON_INTERFACE=NO \ -DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=TRUE
then BuildRequires: chrpath and chrpath -d %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/* can be removed. b) Readline seems to be needed: https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/blob/master/examples/gatttool/CMakeLists... https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/tree/master?tab=readme-ov-file#build-gat... c) License seems like it should be BSD 2-Clause License AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND LGPL-2.1-or-later
Additional license come from:
BSD 2-Clause License -------------------- gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ecc.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ecc.h
GNU General Public License, Version 2 ------------------------------------- gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/lib/amp.h
GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later ----------------------------------------------- gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/monitor/bt.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ad.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ad.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/att-types.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/att.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/att.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/btsnoop.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/btsnoop.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/crypto.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/crypto.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gap.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gap.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-client.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-client.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-db.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-db.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-helpers.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-server.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-server.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hci-crypto.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hci-crypto.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hci.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hci.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hfp.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hfp.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/io-glib.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/io.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/mainloop.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/mainloop.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/mgmt.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/mgmt.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/pcap.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/pcap.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/queue.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/queue.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ringbuf.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ringbuf.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/tester.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/tester.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/timeout-glib.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/timeout-mainloop.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/timeout.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/tty.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/uhid.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/uhid.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/util.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/util.h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/labapart | |/gattlib
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8844264 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Documentation size is 1128729 bytes in 23 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #15 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #13)
Comments: a) Perhaps the documentation can be put in a subpackage?
I wouldn't do it, it's just 92kb compressed. Unless it's huge, I usually leave it with the devel subpackages.
b) If -DGATTLIB_PYTHON_INTERFACE=NO is changed to -DGATTLIB_PYTHON_INTERFACE=NO \ -DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=TRUE
then BuildRequires: chrpath and chrpath -d %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/* can be removed.
Good point. Somehow I remembered that was done by the %cmake macro, but that's not the case. Fixed.
b) Readline seems to be needed: https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/blob/master/examples/gatttool/CMakeLists. txt#L55 https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/tree/master?tab=readme-ov-file#build- gattlib
Yes, but only for gatttool, which does not work properly at the moment so the build is disabled by default: https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/tree/master?tab=readme-ov-file#todo-list Considering the development pace, my guess is that it will never be.
c) License seems like it should be BSD 2-Clause License AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND LGPL-2.1-or-later
Additional license come from:
BSD 2-Clause License
gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ecc.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ecc.h
GNU General Public License, Version 2
gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/lib/amp.h
GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later
gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/monitor/bt.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ad.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ad.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/att-types.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/att.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/att.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/btsnoop.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/btsnoop.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/crypto.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/crypto.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gap.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gap.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-client.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-client.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-db.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-db.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-helpers.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-server.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/gatt-server.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hci-crypto.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hci-crypto.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hci.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hci.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hfp.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/hfp.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/io-glib.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/io.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/mainloop.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/mainloop.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/mgmt.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/mgmt.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/pcap.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/pcap.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/queue.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/queue.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ringbuf.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/ringbuf.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/tester.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/tester.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/timeout-glib.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/timeout-mainloop.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/timeout.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/tty.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/uhid.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/uhid.h gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/util.c gattlib-0.7.2-build/gattlib-0.7.2/bluez/bluez5/src/shared/util.h
This is actually the bluez source code. Packaging guidelines say that the licenses should be based on what is compiled and linked from the sources, so that should not be there. I've removed it in the SPEC file so it's clearer, there's no need to add that license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #16 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/gattlib.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc42.src.rpm
- Drop RPATH by specifying properly CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH in %cmake macro - Drop bluez source in %prep section, so it's clearer that it's not part of the build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2082930 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2082930&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8844264 to 8844639
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8844639 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Documentation size is 1128729 bytes in 23 files. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #19 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1128729 bytes in 23 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/gattlib/2355687- gattlib/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gattlib- examples [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1157120 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-devel-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-examples-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-0.7.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpq00iu2wd')] checks: 32, packages: 4
gattlib-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_advertisement_data gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_ble_scan gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_discover gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_find_eddystone gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_nordic_uart gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_notification gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_read_write gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation gattlib.spec: W: no-%check-section gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.buildinfo gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings, 21 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gattlib-debuginfo-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm gattlib-examples-debuginfo-0.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp7ykjryql')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 checks: 32, packages: 5
gattlib-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: python-sphinx-doctrees-leftover /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_advertisement_data gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_ble_scan gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_discover gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_find_eddystone gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_nordic_uart gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_notification gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gatt_read_write gattlib-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.buildinfo gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.doctrees gattlib-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gattlib-devel/html/.nojekyll 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 53 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/labapart/gattlib/archive/0.7.2/gattlib-0.7.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 23d43c15580e6a3863b76798d7e3ac93b99ff5bd2cbf78a8abc6ca7e3a136a02 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 23d43c15580e6a3863b76798d7e3ac93b99ff5bd2cbf78a8abc6ca7e3a136a02
Requires -------- gattlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gattlib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gattlib(x86-64) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit) pkgconf-pkg-config pkgconfig(glib-2.0)
gattlib-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- gattlib: gattlib gattlib(x86-64) libgattlib.so.0.7.2()(64bit)
gattlib-devel: gattlib-devel gattlib-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(gattlib)
gattlib-examples: gattlib-examples gattlib-examples(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2355687 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Java, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Build on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131008856 b) Not blocking, but can the documentation be placed in a subpackage?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #20 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #19)
b) Not blocking, but can the documentation be placed in a subpackage?
I already replied here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687#c15
No, I think it's too small to deserve its own package, I will do it once it increases.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #21 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Ok. Thanks. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #22 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Some people dislike pulling in javascript, so a separate doc package gives the option not to have it, but it is not a blocking issue.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
--- Comment #23 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #22)
Some people dislike pulling in javascript, so a separate doc package gives the option not to have it, but it is not a blocking issue.
I'll consider it.
Thanks for the review, if you have anything else to review in return please ping me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gattlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2355687
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-05-15 15:03:34
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com