[Bug 1185002] New: Review Request: appmenu-qt5 - Support for global DBus-exported application menu in Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Bug ID: 1185002 Summary: Review Request: appmenu-qt5 - Support for global DBus-exported application menu in Qt5 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mario.blaettermann@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/appmenu-qt5.spec SRPM URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/appmenu-qt5-0.3.0-r26.1.fc21.s...
Description: This is a different, Qt5-compatible approach of the existing appmenu-qt (https://launchpad.net/appmenu-qt).
appmenu-qt5 is a Qt5 QPA theme plugin that adds support for application menus to Qt5 applications. This only works for Qt5 versions >= 5.2 currently. To enable the support, set QT_QPA_PLATFORMTHEME=appmenu-qt5 in your environment.
Fedora Account System Username: mariobl
I get this from rpmlint:
appmenu-qt5.spec:40: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build make %{?_smp_mflags} INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may break short circuit builds.
But I don't know another solution to make the install directory known to qmake-qt5.
Moreover, I'm not sure about versioning. Ubuntu uses the same generated tarball for the package version 0.3.0 although I can't find that number anywhere in the source files. As far as I can evaluate, they use it only for distinction between the existing Qt4 version and the Qt5 package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com 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=1185002
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Some hint about the script in %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/: This script activates the Qt module globally. Actually it does the same as described in README. But this is eventually not desired for systems with multiple users. It could happen that the menu bar of Qt5 applications doesn't appear on desktops without plasma-widget-menubar. Maybe it would be better to drop CONFIG+=enable-by-default from the spec file to disable installing the script...?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter@math.unl.edu Alias| |appmenu-qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu --- Good point, for now I think it safer to provide a sample script as %doc and include a README.fedora to document how a user could include it in their environment.
Once appmenu-qt5 has formal releases and/or it is better tested, then enabling by default would be ok.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
--- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #2)
Good point, for now I think it safer to provide a sample script as %doc and include a README.fedora to document how a user could include it in their environment.
OK, I will do that. The appropriate config option in KDE 4 doesn't affect the behavior of Qt5 apps, I was wondering if it would work in KDE Frameworks 5?
Once appmenu-qt5 has formal releases and/or it is better tested, then enabling by default would be ok.
I would it never enable by default. Imagine, it is the default on a multiuser system. This is only OK if all users work with Plasma (currently v4 only) and have plasma-widget-menubar enabled. In all other cases Qt5 apps remain without menubar, because the module will be loaded at system startup. Correct me if I'm wrong.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- New files:
Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/appmenu-qt5.spec SRPM URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/appmenu-qt5-0.r26-1.fc21.src.r...
- Dropped non-existent version number - Use the script as example, move it to %%doc - Add README.fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
--- Comment #5 from MartinKG mgansser@alice.de --- 2 issues, please fix this:
1. Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL)
2. Rpmlint ------- Checking: appmenu-qt5-0.r26-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm appmenu-qt5-0.r26-1.fc22.src.rpm appmenu-qt5.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.0-r26.1.1 ['0.r26-1.fc22', '0.r26-1'] appmenu-qt5.src: W: invalid-url Source0: appmenu-qt5-0.r26.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/1185002-appmenu-qt5/srpm/appmenu-qt5.spec 2015-02-16 16:52:27.250031296 +0100 +++ /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/1185002-appmenu-qt5/srpm-unpacked/appmenu-qt5.spec 2015-01-25 17:35:02.000000000 +0100 @@ -58,8 +58,6 @@
%changelog -* Sun Jan 25 2015 Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com - 0.r26-1 -- Dropped non-existent version number -- Use the script as example, move it to %%doc -- Add README.fedora +* Sun Jan 25 2015 Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com - 0.3.0-r26.1.1 +- rebuilt
* Wed Dec 17 2014 Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com 0.3.0-r26.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
MartinKG mgansser@alice.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mgansser@alice.de
--- Comment #6 from MartinKG mgansser@alice.de --- Taking this for a full review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
MartinKG mgansser@alice.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- New files:
Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/appmenu-qt5.spec SRPM URL:https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc21.src.r...
The .cmake file is now in a -devel subpackage. I've untangled the versioning in %changelog, because I don't want to copy Ubuntu's versioning anyway.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
MartinKG mgansser@alice.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from MartinKG mgansser@alice.de --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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 %doc. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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]: 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", "LGPL (v3)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/1185002 -appmenu-qt5/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib64/cmake/Qt5Gui [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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 do not use a name that already exist [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.
===== 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc22.x86_64.rpm appmenu-qt5-devel-0.r26-3.fc22.x86_64.rpm appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc22.src.rpm appmenu-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib appmenu-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation appmenu-qt5.src: W: invalid-url Source0: appmenu-qt5-0.r26.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- appmenu-qt5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libEGL.so.1()(64bit) libGL.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdbusmenu-qt5.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) qt5-qtbase-gui rtld(GNU_HASH)
appmenu-qt5-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): appmenu-qt5(x86-64)
Provides -------- appmenu-qt5: appmenu-qt5 appmenu-qt5(x86-64) libappmenu-qt5.so()(64bit)
appmenu-qt5-devel: appmenu-qt5-devel appmenu-qt5-devel(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- appmenu-qt5: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/platformthemes/libappmenu-qt5.so
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1185002 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Package APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Many thanks for the review and approval!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: appmenu-qt5 Short Description: Support for global DBus-exported application menu in Qt5 Upstream URL: https://launchpad.net/appmenu-qt5 Owners: mariobl Branches: f21 f22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- Package appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc21: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc21' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2248/appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3... then log in and leave karma (feedback).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-02-28 05:24:57
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- appmenu-qt5-0.r26-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185002
Björn "besser82" Esser fedora@besser82.io changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@besser82.io Alias|appmenu-qt5 |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla