https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
Bug ID: 2238451 Summary: Review Request: reStream - Screensharing For reMarkable eInk Tablet Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: daniel@daniel-milnes.uk QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thebeanogamer/reStream/608e68432b66fbc0ec8... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/thebeanogamer/reStream/fe... Description: Screensharing For reMarkable eInk Tablet Fedora Account System Username: thebeanogamer COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/thebeanogamer/reStream/build/6395664...
Sadly upstream does not provide any tests for the client, only the server (written in Rust, but useless on anything other than the tablet). I'm open to suggestions for ways to test this, as having me manually test it against my tablet isn't a great solution.
I've submitted the patch I had to make whilst packaging this back to upstream, however the project appears dead.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |mark.e.fuller@gmx.de Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mark.e.fuller@gmx.de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #1 from Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de --- rpmlint is clean
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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fuller/Nextcloud/workspace/2238451-reStream/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9946 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. [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. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
Mark E. Fuller mark.e.fuller@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/reStream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a6bac036fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a6bac036fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-09-13 20:40:35
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a6bac036fe has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-fc79f9329e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fc79f9329e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-93a1508521 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-93a1508521
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6bee392d2b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6bee392d2b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e7aca3ba5a has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e7aca3ba5a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-361d74353e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-361d74353e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e7aca3ba5a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e7aca3ba5a
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-fc79f9329e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-fc79f9329e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fc79f9329e
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-93a1508521 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-93a1508521 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-93a1508521
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-361d74353e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-361d74353e
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6bee392d2b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-6bee392d2b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6bee392d2b
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-fc79f9329e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-93a1508521 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6bee392d2b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e7aca3ba5a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238451
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-361d74353e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com