[Bug 2184635] New: Review Request: mpv_inhibit_gnome - Mpv plugin that prevents screen blanking in GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184635
Bug ID: 2184635 Summary: Review Request: mpv_inhibit_gnome - Mpv plugin that prevents screen blanking in GNOME Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: daron439@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/mpv_inhibit_gnome.spec SRPM URL: https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/mpv_inhibit_gnome-0.1.3-1.fc38... Description: Mpv plugin that prevents screen blanking in GNOME Fedora Account System Username: solopasha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184635
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/Guldoman | |/mpv_inhibit_gnome
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5745244 (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=2184635
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vascom2@gmail.com CC| |vascom2@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184635
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- 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]: 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. [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", "MIT License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2184635-mpv_inhibit_gnome/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. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: 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: [x]: 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. [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: 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: mpv_inhibit_gnome-0.1.3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm mpv_inhibit_gnome-debuginfo-0.1.3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm mpv_inhibit_gnome-debugsource-0.1.3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm mpv_inhibit_gnome-0.1.3-1.fc39.src.rpm =============================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpiz568k89')] checks: 31, packages: 4
================================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ===============================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mpv_inhibit_gnome-debuginfo-0.1.3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm =============================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpup633nv4')] checks: 31, packages: 1
================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ===============================================
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
mpv_inhibit_gnome.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpv_inhibit_gnome.so mpv_observe_property (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpv_inhibit_gnome.so) mpv_inhibit_gnome.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/mpv/mpv_inhibit_gnome.so mpv_wait_event (/usr/lib64/mpv/mpv_inhibit_gnome.so) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- mpv_inhibit_gnome: /etc/mpv/scripts/mpv_inhibit_gnome.so mpv_inhibit_gnome: /usr/lib64/mpv/mpv_inhibit_gnome.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Guldoman/mpv_inhibit_gnome/archive/v0.1.3/mpv_inhibit_gno... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 185668823892c6c124ce60068209a1d15da1eefcbef775dcbc90d91c53403f94 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 185668823892c6c124ce60068209a1d15da1eefcbef775dcbc90d91c53403f94
Requires -------- mpv_inhibit_gnome (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit) mpv rtld(GNU_HASH)
mpv_inhibit_gnome-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
mpv_inhibit_gnome-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- mpv_inhibit_gnome: mpv_inhibit_gnome mpv_inhibit_gnome(x86-64)
mpv_inhibit_gnome-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mpv_inhibit_gnome-debuginfo mpv_inhibit_gnome-debuginfo(x86-64)
mpv_inhibit_gnome-debugsource: mpv_inhibit_gnome-debugsource mpv_inhibit_gnome-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2184635 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, R, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184635
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mpv_inhibit_gnome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184635
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-fd4bc0c02a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fd4bc0c02a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184635
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-04-20 14:52:07
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-fd4bc0c02a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com