https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
Bug ID: 2133789 Summary: Review Request: media-downloader - GUI frontend to multiple CLI based downloading programs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgansser@netcom-mail.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/media-downloader.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/media-downloader-2.6.0-1.fc37... Description: This project is a Qt/C++ based GUI frontend to CLI multiple CLI based tools that deal with downloading online media. yt-dlp CLI tool is the default supported tool and other tools can be added by downloading their extension and a list of supported extensions is managed here.
Features offered:- 1. The GUI can be used to download any media from any website supported by installed extensions. 2. The GUI offers a configurable list of preset options that can be used to download media if they are provided in multiple formats. 3. The GUI offers an ability to do unlimited number of parallel downloads. Be careful with this ability because doing too many parallel downloads may cause the host to ban you. 4. The GUI offers an ability to do batch downloads by entering individual link in the UI or telling the app to read them from a local file. 5. The GUI offers an ability to download playlist from websites that supports them like youtube. 6. The GUI offers ability to manage links to playlist to easily monitor their activities(subscriptions). 7. The GUI is offered in multiple languages and as of this writing, the supported languages are English, Chinese, Spanish, Polish, Turkish, Russian, Japanese, French and Italian. Fedora Account System Username: martinkg
%changelog * Fri Oct 07 2022 Martin Gansser martinkg@fedoraproject.org - 2.6.0-1 - Initial package
rpmlint info: rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 5
media-downloader-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/media-downloader-2.6.0-1.fc37.x86_64.debug This executable should be stripped from debugging symbols, in order to take less space and be loaded faster. This is usually done automatically at buildtime by rpm.
media-downloader-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/media-downloader-2.6.0-1.fc37.x86_64.debug The listed shared library doesn't include information about which other libraries the library was linked against.
media-downloader.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary media-downloader Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
media-downloader-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation media-downloader-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
media-downloader-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/af/90c8e34d5d2fc5232d0d287630d4e2a57bb5d2 ../../../.build-id/af/90c8e34d5d2fc5232d0d287630d4e2a57bb5d2 The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file based dependencies. Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is included in a package in this package's dependency chain.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de --- Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/media-downloader.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/media-downloader-2.7.0-1.fc37...
%changelog * Thu Nov 10 2022 Martin Gansser martinkg@fedoraproject.org - 2.7.0-1 - Update to 2.7.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Martin, thank you for the package.
Name: media-downloader
Nitpicking but there is an unnecessary blank line above the first line
License: GPLv2
The old Fedora license identifiers are not allowed for new packages anymore (according to SPDX Licenses Phase 1): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1#Can_new_package...
Otherwise LGTM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
--- Comment #3 from MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de --- (In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #2)
Hello Martin, thank you for the package.
Name: media-downloader
Nitpicking but there is an unnecessary blank line above the first line
License: GPLv2
The old Fedora license identifiers are not allowed for new packages anymore (according to SPDX Licenses Phase 1): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1#Can_new_packages_use_the_older_Fedora_license_abbreviat ions?
Otherwise LGTM
Hi Jakub,
thanks for reviewing the package. I have changed the 2 mentioned issues.
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/media-downloader.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/media-downloader-2.7.0-2.fc37...
%changelog * Fri Dec 02 2022 Martin Gansser martinkg@fedoraproject.org - 2.7.0-2 - Remove unnecessary blank line above the first line - Use new SPDX license format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2133789-media- downloader/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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. [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: 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 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]: 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 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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3
media-downloader.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary media-downloader 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mhogomchungu/media-downloader/archive/refs/tags/2.7.0.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : acdbdf7722c60603bab1ed5e4ad432a8f9925b475e4ea31eb73768dbc9a055a0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acdbdf7722c60603bab1ed5e4ad432a8f9925b475e4ea31eb73768dbc9a055a0
Requires -------- media-downloader (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aria2 libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.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) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) youtube-dl yt-dlp
media-downloader-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
media-downloader-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- media-downloader: application() application(media-downloader.desktop) media-downloader media-downloader(x86-64)
media-downloader-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) media-downloader-debuginfo media-downloader-debuginfo(x86-64)
media-downloader-debugsource: media-downloader-debugsource media-downloader-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2133789 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Java, PHP, Perl, R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
--- Comment #5 from MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de --- @Jakub Thank you for completing the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/media-downloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133789
MartinKG mgansser@netcom-mail.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-12-08 07:43:26
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org