[Bug 2369375] New: Review Request: clapper-enhancers - Plugins enhancing Clapper library capabilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Bug ID: 2369375 Summary: Review Request: clapper-enhancers - Plugins enhancing Clapper library capabilities Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dominik@greysector.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/clapper-enhancers/clapper-enhancers.... SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/clapper-enhancers/clapper-enhancers-... Description: This package contains the following plugins enhancing Clapper capabilities: * lbry (odysee.com) * peertube * yt-dlp
Fedora Account System Username: rathann
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2218117 (MultimediaSIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218117 [Bug 2218117] Tracker for multimedia-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/Rafostar | |/clapper-enhancers Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9103850 (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=2369375
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- I think you need to byte-compile the Python files. Otherwise, this looks fine. Details below:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
The manual dependency on libpeas-loader-python%{_isa} is reasonable since it apparently cannot be generated; I’m assuming that there is an indirect dlopen()/ctypes involved at some point in the chain. The comment justifying it (“required by yt-dlp enhancer”) could be more detailed, but is adequate.
Similarly, the manual dependency on python3dist(yt-dlp) is reasonable given that this is not a Python library package and there is no .dist-info directory for the Python code it ships (so there can be no Python dependency metadata).
===== Issues =====
- Given that the Python sources in the plugins are used by importing them rather than by executing them as scripts, they must be bytecode-compiled.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_fi...
This doesn’t happen automatically because they aren’t in one of the paths covered by the brp-python-bytecompile BRP script, but you can do it manually.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_manual_by...
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#py_byte_co...
Add:
BuildRequires: python3-devel
Then, at the end of %install:
%py_byte_compile %{python3} %{buildroot}%{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp
Finally, put %pycached before each .py file in the %files list, like:
%pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp.py %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp_dash.py %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp_direct.py %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp_hls.py %pycached %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/clapper_yt_dlp_overrides.py
(This package will still work without byte-compiling the Python files, but byte-compiling will make the plugin load a bit faster and is, as far as I can tell, mandatory under the packaging guidelines.)
- Normally, I would say that you should install README.md as documentation:
%doc README.md
Given how trivial and nearly useless this README.md file is, I think you can justify continuing to omit it, if you want to.
- The LGPL-2.1-or-later license notices and text contain a street address for the Free Software Foundation that is obsolete since they (recently) became a remote-only organization.
clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE
I opened https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/pull/15 to fix this upstream. No change is required in the package submission: I don’t recommend patching this downstream, especially before upstream reviews my PR.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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.
These are not in the system linker path, and they *appear* to be correctly-installed plugins for clapper. This is a correct use of unversioned .so files.
clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/lbry/libclapper-lbry.so clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/peertube/libclapper-peertube.so
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described.
I’m assuming you have tested this interactively, or will do so.
[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.
Upstream provides no tests.
[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]: 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: [!]: 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) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: clapper-enhancers-0.8.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm clapper-enhancers-0.8.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpl2ej7a8g')] checks: 32, packages: 2
clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('lbry', '%description -l en_US lbry -> library') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('peertube', '%description -l en_US peertube -> peer tube, peer-tube, perturbed') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: W: no-documentation clapper-enhancers.spec: W: no-%check-section clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python(x86-64) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: clapper-enhancers-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpa4dird99')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 2
clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.x86_64: W: no-documentation clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE clapper-enhancers.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python(x86-64) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 17 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/lbry/libclapper-lbry.so clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/peertube/libclapper-peertube.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/archive/0.8.2/clapper-enhancer... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2d7a00ba4a14eef975bba34448109022fc9a8bd21c9301b9f1a20e3e5851097 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2d7a00ba4a14eef975bba34448109022fc9a8bd21c9301b9f1a20e3e5851097
Requires -------- clapper-enhancers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libclapper-0.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) libpeas-2.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-loader-python(x86-64) libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit) python3dist(yt-dlp) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- clapper-enhancers: clapper-enhancers clapper-enhancers(x86-64) libclapper-lbry.so()(64bit) libclapper-peertube.so()(64bit)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/srpm/clapper-enhancers.spec 2025-05-31 09:21:16.631059996 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/srpm-unpacked/clapper-enhancers.spec 2025-05-29 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global _clapperenhdir /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers
@@ -60,3 +70,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri May 30 2025 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net - 0.8.2-1 +- initial package for Fedora +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369375 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Oh, one more thing! Please replace
%global _clapperenhdir /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers
with
%global _clapperenhdir %{_libdir}/clapper-0.0/enhancers
This ensures compliance with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros, and it should fix the FTBFS on i686 observed in: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=133420199
You can also add ExcludeArch: %{ix86} due to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval if you don’t expect anything to depend on this, but you should still fix the path definition.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #2)
I think you need to byte-compile the Python files. Otherwise, this looks fine. Details below:
You're absolutely correct. Thanks for catching that!
Package Review
[...]
The manual dependency on libpeas-loader-python%{_isa} is reasonable since it apparently cannot be generated; I’m assuming that there is an indirect dlopen()/ctypes involved at some point in the chain. The comment justifying it (“required by yt-dlp enhancer”) could be more detailed, but is adequate.
It segfaults (inside libpeas.so) otherwise. Not sure if it's a bug.
Similarly, the manual dependency on python3dist(yt-dlp) is reasonable given that this is not a Python library package and there is no .dist-info directory for the Python code it ships (so there can be no Python dependency metadata).
===== Issues =====
- Given that the Python sources in the plugins are used by importing them rather than by executing them as scripts, they must be bytecode-compiled.
Will do, thanks for the detailed steps.
[...]
I opened https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/pull/15 to fix this upstream. No change is required in the package submission: I don’t recommend patching this downstream, especially before upstream reviews my PR.
Thanks!
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3)
Oh, one more thing! Please replace
%global _clapperenhdir /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers
with
%global _clapperenhdir %{_libdir}/clapper-0.0/enhancers
Sure! I can't believe I missed this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dominik@greysecto | |r.net)
--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Dominik, are you still working on this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dominik@greysecto | |r.net) |
--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Yes, addressed all issues and updated to 0.8.3:
Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/clapper-enhancers/clapper-enhancers.... SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/clapper-enhancers/clapper-enhancers-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2111258 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2111258&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9103850 to 9743620
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9743620 (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=2369375
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- The package is APPROVED, but we missed owning a __pycache__ directory. See below, and please fix it by adding the necessary line to %files when you import the package.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
The manual dependency on libpeas-loader-python%{_isa} is reasonable since it apparently cannot be generated; I’m assuming that there is an indirect dlopen()/ctypes involved at some point in the chain.
The update from 0.8.2 to 0.8.3 didn’t require any packaging changes: https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/compare/0.8.2...0.8.3
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/yt- dlp/__pycache__/clapper_yt_dlp.cpython-314.opt-1.pyc See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
I don’t understand this. The %files list looks correct, and I don’t see where a duplicate would come from. The duplicate is harmless if it exists, so I suppose we’ll ignore this.
- It turns out that the %pycached macro does not own the __pycache__ directory itself, apparently because it was originally intended for listing top-level modules in site-packages, and the Python packages own the site-packages/__pycache__ directories.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_fi...
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/yt- dlp/__pycache__
In this case, it seems you’ll need to add:
%dir %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/__pycache__
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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.
These are plugins, installed in appropriate locations that are not in the default linker search path. They are correctly shipped in the base package.
/usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/lbry/libclapper-lbry.so /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/peertube/libclapper-peertube.so
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/yt- dlp/__pycache__ [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/yt-dlp/__pycache__
See Issues.
[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]: 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 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]: 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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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.
I’m assuming you have tested this interactively, or will do so.
[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.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138570160
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Upstream provides no tests.
[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]: 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: [!]: 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) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppsrouu2p')] checks: 32, packages: 2
clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('lbry', '%description -l en_US lbry -> library') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('peertube', '%description -l en_US peertube -> peer tube, peer-tube, perturbed') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: W: no-documentation clapper-enhancers.spec: W: no-%check-section clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python(aarch-64) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: clapper-enhancers-debuginfo-0.8.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpu41_1gms')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 2
clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: W: no-documentation clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python(aarch-64) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/lbry/libclapper-lbry.so clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/peertube/libclapper-peertube.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/archive/0.8.3/clapper-enhancer... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0687505fc3ff35541503e768124f20766e99d76ffea771211c92d43989c87c54 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0687505fc3ff35541503e768124f20766e99d76ffea771211c92d43989c87c54
Requires -------- clapper-enhancers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclapper-0.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) libpeas-2.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-loader-python(aarch-64) libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit) python3dist(yt-dlp) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- clapper-enhancers: clapper-enhancers clapper-enhancers(aarch-64) libclapper-lbry.so()(64bit) libclapper-peertube.so()(64bit)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/srpm/clapper-enhancers.spec 2025-10-29 19:43:30.521862094 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/srpm-unpacked/clapper-enhancers.spec 2025-10-29 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global _clapperenhdir %{_libdir}/clapper-0.0/enhancers
@@ -62,3 +72,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Oct 29 2025 Dominik Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net - 0.8.3-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369375 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clapper-enhancers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
--- Comment #11 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net ---
In this case, it seems you’ll need to add:
%dir %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/__pycache__
Added and building. Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-43af101c56 (clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-43af101c56
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-e65bd56632 (clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e65bd56632
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-10-31 16:18:46
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-43af101c56 (clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-e65bd56632 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-e65bd56632 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e65bd56632
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=2369375
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7e2b36ba02 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-7e2b36ba02 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7e2b36ba02
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=2369375
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-e65bd56632 (clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7e2b36ba02 (clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.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