[Bug 2304055] New: Review Request: kf5-kdecoration - A plugin-based library to create window decorations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Bug ID: 2304055 Summary: Review Request: kf5-kdecoration - A plugin-based library to create window decorations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: topazus@outlook.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/kf5-kdecoration.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/kf5-kdecoration-5.27.11-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: A plugin-based library to create window decorations Fedora Account System Username: topazus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Hold on, what's going on here? Why is this being proposed? This is a KWin plugin, and we don't have KWin 5.x anymore...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #3 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2)
Hold on, what's going on here? Why is this being proposed? This is a KWin plugin, and we don't have KWin 5.x anymore...
It is a dependency of deepin-kwin, https://github.com/linuxdeepin/deepin-kwin/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L138-L...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |kf5-kdecoration - A |kdecoration5 - A |plugin-based library to |plugin-based library to |create window decorations |create window decorations
--- Comment #4 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- @ngompa13@gmail.com Are there any additional steps that I need to take to add the package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Felix Wang from comment #4)
@ngompa13@gmail.com Are there any additional steps that I need to take to add the package?
This needs to be deconflicted with the existing kdecoration package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #6 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/kdecoration5.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/kdecoration5-5.27.11-1.fc42.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://invent.kde.org/plas | |ma/kdecoration
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8188615 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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=2304055
--- Comment #8 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com ---
This needs to be deconflicted with the existing kdecoration package.
What else to do after marking the `Conflicts: kdecoration`?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- You should check which subpackages actually have file conflicts and declare conflicts correctly. I don't think the current declaration is correct or complete.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #10 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- I separated the language files into a -lang subpackage, preventing file conflicts when co-installing the kdecoration and kdecoration5 packages, so kdecoration5-lang subpackage conflicts with kdecoration package. However, co-installing the kdecoration-devel and kdecoration5-devel packages still results in file conflicts.
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/kdecoration5.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/kdecoration5-5.27.11-1.fc42.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2054388 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2054388&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8188615 to 8190908
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8190908 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- 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=2304055
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|shattuckite@outlook.com |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2304055-kdecoration5/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/KDecoration2(kdecoration-devel), /usr/include/KDecoration2/KDecoration2(kdecoration-devel), /usr/include/KDecoration2/KDecoration2/Private(kdecoration-devel), /usr/include/KDecoration2/kdecoration2(kdecoration-devel), /usr/include/KDecoration2/kdecoration2/private(kdecoration-devel), /usr/lib64/cmake/KDecoration2(kdecoration-devel) [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [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]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [x]: 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. [-]: %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: kdecoration5-5.27.11-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm kdecoration5-devel-5.27.11-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm kdecoration5-lang-5.27.11-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm kdecoration5-debuginfo-5.27.11-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm kdecoration5-debugsource-5.27.11-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm kdecoration5-5.27.11-1.fc42.src.rpm ========================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3v0yvji9')] checks: 32, packages: 6
kdecoration5.x86_64: W: no-documentation kdecoration5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kdecoration5-lang.x86_64: W: no-documentation kdecoration5-lang.x86_64: E: no-binary ==================================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 39 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s =====================================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kdecoration5-debuginfo-5.27.11-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ========================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpljzr6_43')] checks: 32, packages: 1
==================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =====================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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
kdecoration5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kdecoration5.x86_64: W: no-documentation kdecoration5-lang.x86_64: W: no-documentation kdecoration5-lang.x86_64: E: no-binary 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 37 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/plasma/kdecoration/-/archive/v5.27.11/kdecoration-v5.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 74abe7c2c800fa77783b23e86741a1e9051a94b5d8f2c6c24df765a13c94fe03 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74abe7c2c800fa77783b23e86741a1e9051a94b5d8f2c6c24df765a13c94fe03
Requires -------- kdecoration5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kf5-filesystem libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit) 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) libc.so.6()(64bit) libkdecorations2private.so.10()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
kdecoration5-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) kdecoration5(x86-64) libkdecorations2.so.5()(64bit) libkdecorations2private.so.10()(64bit)
kdecoration5-lang (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kdecoration5(x86-64)
kdecoration5-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
kdecoration5-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- kdecoration5: kdecoration5 kdecoration5(x86-64) libkdecorations2.so.5()(64bit) libkdecorations2private.so.10()(64bit)
kdecoration5-devel: cmake(KDecoration2) cmake(kdecoration2) kdecoration5-devel kdecoration5-devel(x86-64)
kdecoration5-lang: kdecoration5-lang kdecoration5-lang(x86-64)
kdecoration5-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kdecoration5-debuginfo kdecoration5-debuginfo(x86-64) libkdecorations2.so.5.27.11-5.27.11-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libkdecorations2private.so.5.27.11-5.27.11-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
kdecoration5-debugsource: kdecoration5-debugsource kdecoration5-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2304055 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Java, fonts, Perl, R, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Nothing surprising here. I wish deepin was ported to Qt6+KF6 already, but here we are...
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #15 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Oh wait, one last thing: you can't use "%{?_isa}" in dependencies for noarch subpackages. The result will be broken. Drop it from the -lang subpackage.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #15)
Oh wait, one last thing: you can't use "%{?_isa}" in dependencies for noarch subpackages. The result will be broken. Drop it from the -lang subpackage.
Scratch that, I looked at an older version of the spec, this was already addressed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kdecoration5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
--- Comment #18 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Thanks for reviewing this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-0d353a646e (kdecoration5-5.27.11-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0d353a646e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2304055
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-11-03 06:11:38
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-0d353a646e (kdecoration5-5.27.11-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com