https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
Bug ID: 1663348 Summary: Review Request: blogilo - Blogging Client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/kkofler/kannolo/blogilo.git/... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-rawhi... Description: Blogilo is a blogging client which supports various blogging APIs. Fedora Account System Username: kkofler
This is a package that was previously in Fedora and that I wish to unretire. The FTBFS is fixed. You need the following kf5-kpimtextedit build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1176920 that should hopefully be hitting Rawhide soon.
(For F29, you need the following kf5-kpimtextedit build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1176921 and for F28, you need the following kf5-kpimtextedit build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1176922 My plan there is to work with buildroot overrides and a grouped update once the package is properly unretired.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
Rex Dieter rdieter@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |656997 (kde-reviews)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
José Matos jamatos@fc.up.pt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jamatos@fc.up.pt
--- Comment #1 from José Matos jamatos@fc.up.pt --- Using fedora-review, that locally uses mock (that defaults in this case to fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg) I get in build.log:
+ /usr/bin/cmake -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG -DCMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON -DBUILD_TESTING:BOOL=FALSE -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR_KF5:PATH=/usr/include/KF5 -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBEXECDIR_KF5:PATH=/usr/libexec/kf5 -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr -DCMAKE_USE_RELATIVE_PATHS:BOOL=ON -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON -DECM_MKSPECS_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/mkspecs/modules -DKDE_INSTALL_BINDIR:PATH=/usr/bin -DKDE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR:PATH=/usr/include -DKDE_INSTALL_KCFGDIR:PATH=/usr/share/config.kcfg -DKDE_INSTALL_LIBDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64 -DKDE_INSTALL_LIBEXECDIR:PATH=/usr/libexec -DKDE_INSTALL_METAINFODIR:PATH=/usr/share/metainfo -DKDE_INSTALL_PLUGINDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins -DKDE_INSTALL_QMLDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/qml -DKDE_INSTALL_QTPLUGINDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins -DKDE_INSTALL_QTQUICKIMPORTSDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/imports -DKDE_INSTALL_SYSCONFDIR:PATH=/etc -DKDE_INSTALL_USE_QT_SYS_PATHS:BOOL=ON .. -DBUILD_TESTING:BOOL=OFF -- The C compiler identification is GNU 8.2.1 -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 8.2.1 -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- broken BUILDSTDERR: CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake/Modules/CMakeTestCCompiler.cmake:52 (message): BUILDSTDERR: The C compiler BUILDSTDERR: "/usr/bin/cc" BUILDSTDERR: is not able to compile a simple test program. BUILDSTDERR: It fails with the following output: BUILDSTDERR: Change Dir: /builddir/build/BUILD/blogilo-17.08.3/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles/CMakeTmp BUILDSTDERR: BUILDSTDERR: Run Build Command:"/usr/bin/gmake" "cmTC_ed7e6/fast" BUILDSTDERR: /usr/bin/gmake -f CMakeFiles/cmTC_ed7e6.dir/build.make CMakeFiles/cmTC_ed7e6.dir/build BUILDSTDERR: gmake[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/blogilo-17.08.3/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles/CMakeTmp' BUILDSTDERR: Building C object CMakeFiles/cmTC_ed7e6.dir/testCCompiler.c.o BUILDSTDERR: /usr/bin/cc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -o CMakeFiles/cmTC_ed7e6.dir/testCCompiler.c.o -c /builddir/build/BUILD/blogilo-17.08.3/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles/CMakeTmp/testCCompiler.c BUILDSTDERR: {standard input}: Assembler messages: BUILDSTDERR: {standard input}:470: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.attach_to_group' BUILDSTDERR: {standard input}:473: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.attach_to_group' BUILDSTDERR: {standard input}:476: Error: unknown pseudo-op: `.attach_to_group' BUILDSTDERR: gmake[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/cmTC_ed7e6.dir/build.make:66: CMakeFiles/cmTC_ed7e6.dir/testCCompiler.c.o] Error 1 BUILDSTDERR: gmake[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/blogilo-17.08.3/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles/CMakeTmp' BUILDSTDERR: gmake: *** [Makefile:121: cmTC_ed7e6/fast] Error 2 BUILDSTDERR: BUILDSTDERR: BUILDSTDERR: CMake will not be able to correctly generate this project. BUILDSTDERR: Call Stack (most recent call first): BUILDSTDERR: CMakeLists.txt:1 (project)
Could it be that spec is missing a BR: gcc-g++?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Normally, gcc-c++ is dragged in transitively by the KDE devel stack (the package built fine in Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kkofler/kannolo/build/841425/ ), but I can add it explicitly.
But the error you are getting is bizarre, because CMake says that both gcc and g++ are found: -- The C compiler identification is GNU 8.2.1 -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 8.2.1 and that there is a /usr/bin/cc (which is normally provided by gcc), but that /usr/bin/cc is producing output that the assembler does not understand. So this looks like a different and more complex issue than just a missing BR gcc-c++.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org --- This is the Copr build log for fedora-rawhide-x86_64: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-rawhi...
-- The C compiler identification is GNU 8.2.1 -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 8.2.1 -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- works
Can you please compare your root.log with the one from Copr: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-rawhi... to see whether there is any notable difference?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org --- You are probably getting inconsistent versions of gcc and binutils for some reason, maybe a stale mirror?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Use %bcond_with/%bcond_without for this:
# uncomment to enable bootstrap mode %global bootstrap 1
%if !0%{?bootstrap} %global tests 1 %endif
- Not needed anymore:
%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
- Add hicolor-icon-theme as a RR to own the icons directory
- Please don't glob the major soname version to avoid unintentional soname bump:
%{_kf5_libdir}/libcomposereditorwebengineprivate.so.5*
- Add gcc-c++ as a BR
- /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/blogilo dir is already included in the lang file, you should remove this duplicate.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/blogilo See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in blogilo-libs See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.2)", "GPL (v2)". 175 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/blogilo/review-blogilo/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]: %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]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 655360 bytes in 38 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 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]: 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in blogilo- libs , blogilo-debuginfo , blogilo-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2129920 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: blogilo-17.08.3-10.fc30.x86_64.rpm blogilo-libs-17.08.3-10.fc30.x86_64.rpm blogilo-debuginfo-17.08.3-10.fc30.x86_64.rpm blogilo-debugsource-17.08.3-10.fc30.x86_64.rpm blogilo-17.08.3-10.fc30.src.rpm blogilo.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/blogilo.categories blogilo.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/blogilo.renamecategories blogilo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blogilo blogilo-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
- Use %bcond_with/%bcond_without for this:
# uncomment to enable bootstrap mode %global bootstrap 1
%if !0%{?bootstrap} %global tests 1 %endif
I don't think that this is a requirement, is it? As far as I know, all the Qt/KDE packages that require bootstrapping use the %global bootstrap 1 idiom for bootstrapping, so I'd rather be consistent.
- Please don't glob the major soname version to avoid unintentional soname bump:
%{_kf5_libdir}/libcomposereditorwebengineprivate.so.5*
This is a private library, so why do we care what the soversion is? No other package uses this library, ever.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #6)
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
- Use %bcond_with/%bcond_without for this:
# uncomment to enable bootstrap mode %global bootstrap 1
%if !0%{?bootstrap} %global tests 1 %endif
I don't think that this is a requirement, is it? As far as I know, all the Qt/KDE packages that require bootstrapping use the %global bootstrap 1 idiom for bootstrapping, so I'd rather be consistent.
- Please don't glob the major soname version to avoid unintentional soname bump:
%{_kf5_libdir}/libcomposereditorwebengineprivate.so.5*
This is a private library, so why do we care what the soversion is? No other package uses this library, ever.
Noted.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |)
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/kkofler/kannolo/blogilo.git/... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kkofler/kannolo/fedora-rawhi...
* Tue Mar 12 2019 Kevin Kofler Kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org - 17.08.3-11 - Remove obsolete ldconfig scriptlets - Add missing Requires: hicolor-icon-theme - Add missing BuildRequires: gcc-c++ and (explicit) BuildRequires: cmake - Remove duplicate mention of the HTML documentation from the file list
Changes: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/kkofler/kannolo/blogilo.git/...
Is this good now?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(zebob.m@gmail.com | |) |
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Thanks! I filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8207 to request unretirement.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-34665e5a9a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8dc8b2894b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc28 kf5-kpimtextedit-18.08.3-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-fb19cac349
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-34665e5a9a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc28, kf5-kpimtextedit-18.08.3-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-fb19cac349
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8dc8b2894b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-03-19 05:15:50
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc28, kf5-kpimtextedit-18.08.3-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com