https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2318522 --- Comment #6 from wojnilowicz <lukasz.wojnilowicz@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > (In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #1) > > 5) Shouldn't you drop versioned dependencies here as required at > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > #_package_dependencies ? > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libei-1.0) >= 0.99.1 > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libportal) >= 0.8.0 > > Those versions are very new, and are required for deskflow to work. The docs > say: > > "If a versioned dependency would be satisfied by a version present in three > previous Fedora releases then a versioned dependency is not needed and a > regular unversioned dependency SHOULD be used instead." > > Fedora 39 has libportal 0.7.1 which is not new enough. F40 and F41 have > 0.8.1 but that's only two previous Fedora releases. Correct for libportal but libei-1.0 should be 1.3 and not 0.99.1 (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > (In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #1) > > 1) Shouldn't the "Path:" statements be numbered as at > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_applying_patches > > ? > > Those docs are outdated. Since RPM 4.19 in Fedora 39 the %PatchN syntax is > deprecated: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19#Upgrade/compatibility_impact %patchN is deprecated indeed but "PatchN:" is not. I believe it should be corrected. BTW, the deprecation can be also seen at https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > (In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #1) > > 6) CMake will fail if HAVE_PTHREAD is FALSE. Shouldn't you add then the > > following line? > > BuildRequires: glibc-devel > > There is already BuildRequires: gcc-c++ which requires libstdc++-devel which > requires glibc-devel. > > I think HAVE_PTHREAD is always true for the glibc version in current Fedora > releases. Yeah, they're probably inseparable. (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > (In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #1) > > 2) Could you also add a link to the PR and not only a link to the patches? > > It's difficult to locate a PR based only on > > https://github.com/deskflow/deskflow/pull/7651.patch > > You just remove the ".patch" part: > https://github.com/deskflow/deskflow/pull/7651 That's fine then. > (In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #1) > 8) I haven't built it yet, but shouldn't more go under the %doc tag? I mean products of mainpage.md and configuration.md. They're built as doc in CMake. I was wrong here. It's on the master branch and not in the 1.17.0 version. Anyway, here is a summarized review template: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= Below was generated automatically and is not an issue AFAIK: - 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. Note: License file copyright.h is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Common Public License 1.0", "*No copyright* Microsoft Reciprocal License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 139 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/deskflow/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. [-]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Are below really required? I don't see them in the CMake files? BuildRequires: gulrak-filesystem-devel BuildRequires: libcurl-devel BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6Core5Compat) BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6LinguistTools) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(avahi-compat-libdns_sd) [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 11785 bytes in 4 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines 1) "Path:" statements not numbered as at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_applying_patches %patchN is deprecated, "PatchN:" not. 2) The source contains exception to the license at https://github.com/deskflow/deskflow/blob/v1.17.0/LICENSE_EXCEPTION which isn't listed under %license I think it's not as intended in the guideline at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 3) Wrongly applied dependencies versioning https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libei-1.0) >= 0.99.1 BuildRequires: cmake >= 3.12 [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. "No tests were found!!!" as seen at https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wojnilowicz/deskflow/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08206106-deskflow/builder-live.log.gz although the package has some tests. I believe they should be executed. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "deskflow". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "deskflow-debugsource". ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "deskflow-debuginfo". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/deskflow/deskflow/archive/v1.17.0/deskflow-1.17.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5ba7fd70ca13f909ef23d6a5db250ebfae1e1f6c2ac89daf8d4cb3adc9e53538 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5ba7fd70ca13f909ef23d6a5db250ebfae1e1f6c2ac89daf8d4cb3adc9e53538 Requires -------- deskflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.8)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libXinerama.so.1()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libei.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libportal.so.1()(64bit) libpugixml.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_1.0.0)(64bit) libxkbfile.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) deskflow-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): deskflow-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- deskflow: application() application(deskflow.desktop) deskflow deskflow(x86-64) synergy deskflow-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) deskflow-debuginfo deskflow-debuginfo(x86-64) deskflow-debugsource: deskflow-debugsource deskflow-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name deskflow --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, R, Ocaml, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2318522 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202318522%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
