[Bug 1448557] New: Review Request: hidviz - A tool for in-depth analysis of USB HID devices communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Bug ID: 1448557 Summary: Review Request: hidviz - A tool for in-depth analysis of USB HID devices communication Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jskarvad@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz-0.1.2-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Hidviz is a GUI application for in-depth analysis of USB HID class devices. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
Upstream code doesn't have license setup yet, but during in-person talk with the author he told to me that it will be licensed under GPLv3+. I also pointed to the upstream that license text has to be added to the tarball.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz-0.1.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
Licensing should be resolved now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg@smart.ms
--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Are you interested in a review swap with bug #1428202?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |928937 (qt-reviews)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937 [Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2)
Are you interested in a review swap with bug #1428202?
NP, but Damian Wrobel is assigned on it and according to comment 3, the review is blocked by FTBFS. Is it resolved?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zdohnal@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zdohnal@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com --- I'll take it Jarda.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jskarvad@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com --- I encountered FTBFS errors (srpm needs to be built in rawhide):
/builddir/build/BUILD/hidviz-0.1.3/libhidx/libhidx_server/src/Server.cc: In function 'void libhidx::server::run(std::__cxx11::string, bool)': /builddir/build/BUILD/hidviz-0.1.3/libhidx/libhidx_server/src/Server.cc:386:14: error: 'function' is not a member of 'std' std::function<void(const asio::error_code& ec)> timerHandler; ^~~~~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/hidviz-0.1.3/libhidx/libhidx_server/src/Server.cc:386:14: note: suggested alternative: 'is_function' std::function<void(const asio::error_code& ec)> timerHandler; ^~~~~~~~ is_function /builddir/build/BUILD/hidviz-0.1.3/libhidx/libhidx_server/src/Server.cc:386:23: error: expected primary-expression before 'void' std::function<void(const asio::error_code& ec)> timerHandler; ^~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/hidviz-0.1.3/libhidx/libhidx_server/src/Server.cc:388:9: error: 'timerHandler' was not declared in this scope timerHandler = [&](const asio::error_code&) { ^~~~~~~~~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/hidviz-0.1.3/libhidx/libhidx_server/src/Server.cc:388:9: note: suggested alternative: 'file_handle' timerHandler = [&](const asio::error_code&) { ^~~~~~~~~~~~ file_handle make[2]: *** [libhidx/libhidx_server/CMakeFiles/hidx_server.dir/build.make:74: libhidx/libhidx_server/CMakeFiles/hidx_server.dir/src/Server.cc.o] Error 1
Jarda, would you mind fixing it or should I look further into it?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |NotReady
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #5)
I encountered FTBFS errors (srpm needs to be built in rawhide):
Thanks for catching.
Jarda, would you mind fixing it or should I look further into it?
https://github.com/ondrejbudai/libhidx/pull/8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #7 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- Please try new version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #8 from Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com --- rpmlint test for binary rpm:
$ rpmlint -iv hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm hidviz.x86_64: I: checking hidviz.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/ondrejbudai/hidviz (timeout 10 seconds) hidviz.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete it from the package if not.
hidviz.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete it from the package if not.
hidviz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidviz Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|NotReady |
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com --- $ rpmlint -iv hidviz-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm hidviz-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking hidviz-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/ondrejbudai/hidviz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com --- $ rpmlint -iv hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc27.src.rpm hidviz.src: I: checking hidviz.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/ondrejbudai/hidviz (timeout 10 seconds) hidviz.src: I: checking-url http://hidviz.org/releases/hidviz-0.1.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #11 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #10)
$ rpmlint -iv hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc27.src.rpm hidviz.src: I: checking hidviz.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/ondrejbudai/hidviz (timeout 10 seconds) hidviz.src: I: checking-url http://hidviz.org/releases/hidviz-0.1.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
It looks like our network outage, it works for me at the moment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #12 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #11)
(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #10)
$ rpmlint -iv hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc27.src.rpm hidviz.src: I: checking hidviz.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/ondrejbudai/hidviz (timeout 10 seconds) hidviz.src: I: checking-url http://hidviz.org/releases/hidviz-0.1.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
It looks like our network outage, it works for me at the moment.
No, I wasn't right, you are running it with '-v' and it's saying it will wait for 10 seconds in case of trouble, so it's OK.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #13 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #12)
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #11)
(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #10)
$ rpmlint -iv hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc27.src.rpm hidviz.src: I: checking hidviz.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/ondrejbudai/hidviz (timeout 10 seconds) hidviz.src: I: checking-url http://hidviz.org/releases/hidviz-0.1.4.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
It looks like our network outage, it works for me at the moment.
No, I wasn't right, you are running it with '-v' and it's saying it will wait for 10 seconds in case of trouble, so it's OK.
This is important: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #14 from Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com --- I just added it here for formal reasons, to see that there aren't any issues with rpmlint. Maybe man page it is good thing to have and that hidden file/directory seems like some garbage after build getting packed - but it is for upstream to decide, if that file/directory is important.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #15 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #14)
I just added it here for formal reasons, to see that there aren't any issues with rpmlint. Maybe man page it is good thing to have and that hidden file/directory seems like some garbage after build getting packed - but it is for upstream to decide, if that file/directory is important.
hidviz.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
This is due to change in Fedora build system. This is out of scope of downstream maintainer / upstream. The right rpmlint solution is currently discussed in bug 1431408.
Thanks for reporting the manual page RFE upstream. It's not mandatory to include manual page. I hoped that somebody will contribute it (e.g. Debian :), but currently it seems upstream will create one :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com --- There is results of fedora review with some issues at top, which should be resolved before we can move on. Most items are good, but there is several items to solve.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - .so files must be either versioned and then be in -libs subpackage and that subpackage must have %post+%postun scriplets with '/sbin/ldconfig' and . Or unversioned .so files must be in -devel subpackage. - missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package - package must own directories - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128 - libhidx_server_daemon must be in %{_libexecdir}/%{name} directory - if daemon is meant to run by system rather than by user - you should use %{name} instead hidviz in paths - package contains *daemon executable - could it run as service in systemd? - convert function can be in %install scriptlet - I think it makes more sense to have it in same place with 'install' command
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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. - .so files must be either versioned and then package must have %post+%postun scriplets with '/sbin/ldconfig'. Or .so files must be in -devel subpackage.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0) GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/hidviz/review-hidviz/licensecheck.txt - missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128 [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 - it can be false positive - it depends on purpose of *.so files
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). - you should use %{name} instead hidviz in paths
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. - libhidx_server_daemon must be in %{_libexecdir}%{name} directory
[-]: 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. - package contains *daemon executable - could it run as service in systemd?
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in hidviz [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines - problems mentioned above
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package 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]: 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 hidviz- debuginfo [x]: 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. [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. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm hidviz-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm hidviz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidviz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hidviz-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- hidviz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidviz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- hidviz-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
hidviz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.7)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhidx.so()(64bit) libhidx_server.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.9()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- hidviz-debuginfo: hidviz-debuginfo hidviz-debuginfo(x86-64)
hidviz: application() application(hidviz.desktop) hidviz hidviz(x86-64) libhidx.so()(64bit) libhidx_server.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- hidviz: /usr/lib64/hidviz/libhidx.so hidviz: /usr/lib64/hidviz/libhidx_server.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://hidviz.org/releases/hidviz-0.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a68f5626b184c76cc54bd60735b6fbe715d86958f9a4ef3147b30b9bb8dbff9b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a68f5626b184c76cc54bd60735b6fbe715d86958f9a4ef3147b30b9bb8dbff9b
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n hidviz Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #17 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #16) Thanks for the review, comments follow inline.
Issues:
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Incorrect, this was changed, all deps have to be explicitly listed, there are no exceptions. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2
- .so files must be either versioned and then be in -libs subpackage and
that subpackage must have %post+%postun scriplets with '/sbin/ldconfig' and . Or unversioned .so files must be in -devel subpackage.
This is non public library, it doesn't need to be versioned, but versioning would be nice.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_vers...
- missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package
IMHO there is no license conflict, the resulting package can be released under GPLv3+ as upstream states.
- package must own directories - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128
I think it should be owned by filesystem, but I am going to fix it.
- libhidx_server_daemon must be in %{_libexecdir}/%{name} directory - if
daemon is meant to run by system rather than by user
This is not mandatory: "Packagers are highly encouraged to store libexecdir files in a package-specific subdirectory..."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libexecdir
It will be nice to have it in subdir, please file RFE upstream (or I can do it).
- you should use %{name} instead hidviz in paths
Really minor and depends on personal taste.
- package contains *daemon executable - could it run as service in systemd?
It is not meant to to be run as a system service.
- convert function can be in %install scriptlet - I think it makes more sense to have it in same place with 'install' command
It depends on the point of view, it's creating source file which is not currently present in the tarball. But it's minor, I can change it.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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.
- .so files must be either versioned and then package must have %post+%postun scriplets with '/sbin/ldconfig'. Or .so files must be in -devel subpackage.
Comment above.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
- missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0) GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/hidviz/review-hidviz/licensecheck.txt
- missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package
Comment above.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128
Comment above, but I am goint to change it.
[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
- it can be false positive - it depends on purpose of *.so files
Yup, false positive, comment above.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
- you should use %{name} instead hidviz in paths
This check is mostly meant not to use /usr/lib64 instead of %libdir, etc. But I can change it.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
- libhidx_server_daemon must be in %{_libexecdir}%{name} directory
IMHO there is no FHS opinion about libexecdir. AFAIK there is no *must* anywhere, also comment above.
[-]: 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.
- package contains *daemon executable - could it run as service in systemd?
No, there is no service. The deamon is used only when the GUI is run to split non privileged GUI from the privileged core, because you cannot run privileged GUI in Wayland.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in hidviz [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- problems mentioned above
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package 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]: 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 hidviz- debuginfo
False positive
[x]: 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. [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. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm hidviz-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm hidviz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidviz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
Checking: hidviz-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
hidviz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidviz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
hidviz-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
hidviz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.7)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhidx.so()(64bit) libhidx_server.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.9()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
hidviz-debuginfo: hidviz-debuginfo hidviz-debuginfo(x86-64)
hidviz: application() application(hidviz.desktop) hidviz hidviz(x86-64) libhidx.so()(64bit) libhidx_server.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files
hidviz: /usr/lib64/hidviz/libhidx.so hidviz: /usr/lib64/hidviz/libhidx_server.so
Source checksums
http://hidviz.org/releases/hidviz-0.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a68f5626b184c76cc54bd60735b6fbe715d86958f9a4ef3147b30b9bb8dbff9b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a68f5626b184c76cc54bd60735b6fbe715d86958f9a4ef3147b30b9bb8dbff9b
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n hidviz Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #18 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz-0.1.4-2.fc25.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #19 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- New version: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/hidviz/hidviz-0.1.4-3.fc25.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com --- The newest srpm fixed flaws discussed above, giving + and ACCEPT.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #21 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/hidviz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-05-19 11:08:04
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- hidviz-0.1.4-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b51fe482b6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- hidviz-0.1.4-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f4a4632fd4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- hidviz-0.1.4-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b51fe482b6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- hidviz-0.1.4-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f4a4632fd4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2017-05-19 11:08:04 |2017-05-31 05:03:00
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- hidviz-0.1.4-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- hidviz-0.1.4-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com