https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Bug ID: 1775443 Summary: Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: MorianSonnet@googlemail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/momosomium/wlr-randr Spec URL: wlr-randr.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedora-... Description: wlr-randr is an xrandr clone for wlroots compositors Fedora Account System Username: momosomium koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39182299
This is my first official package, so I am thankful and open for any recommendations.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |thofmann@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |thofmann@fedoraproject.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- I'll do the review and also sponsor Morian.
Can you please provide a proper URL for the SPEC file?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #2 from Morian Sonnet MorianSonnet@googlemail.com --- Shoot, mixed up 'copy' and 'copy link' there. Here it is: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedora-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #3 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- Some minor comments: * Version should just be 0: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_upstr... * Please include the date in the release field: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snaps.... It should be something like 1.20191122.c4066aa * Is %{url}/tarball a new feature of GitHub? I've never seen it before. Usually, the guidelines recommend a slightly different URL. I'd definitely recommend using the full commit hash and then define the shortcommit using the full commit hash: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Gi... * The version in the changelog does not match the release tag. Easiest way to do this is to remove all changelog entries, set Release to 0.20191122.c4066aa (0 at the start), and then use `rpmdev-bumpspec` to bump the release and generate the changelog entry.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #4 from Morian Sonnet MorianSonnet@googlemail.com --- Thank your for your comments.
Here is the updated spec file: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedora-...
The bump of the release somehow did not work, maybe because I used the snapinfo with included scm identifier?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #5 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- Sorry, I missed that you've already replied to my comments.
The URL to the SPEC file is no longer up to date, can you please upload it again somewhere?
Usually the `rpmdev-bumspec` works even with snapshots Release tags, but it really depends on the way you specify the Release exactly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Morian Sonnet MorianSonnet@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(thofmann@fedorapr | |oject.org)
--- Comment #6 from Morian Sonnet MorianSonnet@googlemail.com --- Sorry, I did not look into this for a while.
Here is the new .spec file, it also includes the newest commits upstream.
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedo...
I don't know how I messed up `rpmdev-bumpspec` back then, now it worked flawlessly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(thofmann@fedorapr | |oject.org) |
--- Comment #7 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- You should also upload the SRPM somewhere. It's usually best to stick to the format in the initial bug template, as this allows fedora-review to pick up the URLs, here's an example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467#c4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #8 from Morian Sonnet MorianSonnet@googlemail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedo... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedo...
Ok, here it is. Sorry for wasting your time again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #9 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- No worries, no time wasted :)
Requires: pkgconfig(wayland-client) Requires: pkgconfig(wlroots)
This is most probably wrong, a package should not require devel packages. Note that the dependency on wayland-client is picked up automatically. [More precisely, the dependency on libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) is picked up automatically]. So, just removing those two lines should be sufficient. See [1] for some more information.
Also, please keep the changelog intact. It currently contains a single entry, but you updated it at least once.
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_require...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #10 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- It looks like you reset the Release to `Release: 1.`? You shouldn't do that, because its version is then lower than the previous version, e.g., 0-1.20200408 < 0-2.20200301. rpmdev-vercmp is a handy tool to verify that the version ordering is correct.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #11 from Morian Sonnet MorianSonnet@googlemail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedo... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedo...
* Removed explicit requires * Made Changelog consistent with bug-report discussion (I made that version number change to allow the package a clean start, without my rather large number of mini changes)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- Package approved!
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/thofmann/fedora/reviews/review-wlr- randr/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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: 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: wlr-randr-0-3.20200408git5ff601a.fc33.x86_64.rpm wlr-randr-debuginfo-0-3.20200408git5ff601a.fc33.x86_64.rpm wlr-randr-debugsource-0-3.20200408git5ff601a.fc33.x86_64.rpm wlr-randr-0-3.20200408git5ff601a.fc33.src.rpm wlr-randr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xrandr -> rand wlr-randr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots wlr-randr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xrandr -> rand wlr-randr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlroots -> roots wlr-randr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wlr-randr wlr-randr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xrandr -> rand wlr-randr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots wlr-randr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xrandr -> rand wlr-randr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlroots -> roots 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wlr-randr-debuginfo-0-3.20200408git5ff601a.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). wlr-randr-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/wlr-randr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> wlr-randr-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/wlr-randr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> wlr-randr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xrandr -> rand wlr-randr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wlroots -> roots wlr-randr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xrandr -> rand wlr-randr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlroots -> roots wlr-randr.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/emersion/wlr-randr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> wlr-randr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wlr-randr 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/emersion/wlr-randr/archive/5ff601a584b661e4bad9036026ce9e... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c91caabcdb840f2935f6e249e6a8602261014b7840b0345183f6b3b2c34dc61e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c91caabcdb840f2935f6e249e6a8602261014b7840b0345183f6b3b2c34dc61e
Requires -------- wlr-randr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
wlr-randr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
wlr-randr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- wlr-randr: wlr-randr wlr-randr(x86-64)
wlr-randr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wlr-randr-debuginfo wlr-randr-debuginfo(x86-64)
wlr-randr-debugsource: wlr-randr-debugsource wlr-randr-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #13 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- As I still need to sponsor you, I realized that your emails in FAS and on Bugzilla do not match exactly; one uses camel case, the other one all lower case. Not sure if this matters, but can you change that so they match exactly?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #14 from Morian Sonnet morian.sonnet@rwth-aachen.de --- Thanks for reviewing!
Seems like FAS calls to_lowercase on the email address and Bugzilla allows only to change the email once. FAS and Bugzilla emails should be equal now, different from before though.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Aleksei Bavshin alebastr89@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alebastr89@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 from Aleksei Bavshin alebastr89@gmail.com ---
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(wlroots)
Is this BR necessary? Nothing in the application code uses or links to wlroots.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #16 from Morian Sonnet morian.sonnet@rwth-aachen.de --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedo... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedo...
* Removed unnecessary BuildRequires
Thanks for the hint Aleksei. It seems like that BR remained from the original .spec file I used as base. Further, after reading [1] again, I also removed the BR wayland-devel.
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #17 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wlr-randr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-e4a845d02d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e4a845d02d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-eb7a6e160b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-eb7a6e160b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-abe15ce02e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-abe15ce02e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-abe15ce02e has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-abe15ce02e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-abe15ce02e
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=1775443
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-eb7a6e160b has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-eb7a6e160b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-eb7a6e160b
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=1775443
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-e4a845d02d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e4a845d02d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e4a845d02d
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=1775443
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-05-02 04:03:13
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-abe15ce02e has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-eb7a6e160b has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-e4a845d02d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com