https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120
Vasiliy Glazov <vasc...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Vasiliy Glazov <vasc...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD 3-clause "New"
or "Revised" License GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
"GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)". 435 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/vascom/1844120-jamulus/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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: 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: jamulus-3.5.5-6.fc33.x86_64.rpm
jamulus-debuginfo-3.5.5-6.fc33.x86_64.rpm
jamulus-debugsource-3.5.5-6.fc33.x86_64.rpm
jamulus-3.5.5-6.fc33.src.rpm
jamulus.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/jamulus/COPYING
jamulus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jamulus
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: jamulus-debuginfo-3.5.5-6.fc33.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
jamulus-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
jamulus.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
jamulus.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/jamulus/COPYING
jamulus.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jamulus
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
jamulus-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/archive/r3_5_5.tar.gz#/jamulus-3.5.5.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
666e90f296d48b24dab47ac72f1d6f09964e1396f5cf625df967d13f74a6b164
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
666e90f296d48b24dab47ac72f1d6f09964e1396f5cf625df967d13f74a6b164
Requires
--------
jamulus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.14)(64bit)
libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Xml.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Xml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libjack.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libopus.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
jamulus-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jamulus-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
jamulus:
application()
application(jamulus.desktop)
jamulus
jamulus(x86-64)
jamulus-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
jamulus-debuginfo
jamulus-debuginfo(x86-64)
jamulus-debugsource:
jamulus-debugsource
jamulus-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/vascom/1844120-jamulus/srpm/jamulus.spec 2020-06-09
09:17:31.458179180 +0300
+++ /home/vascom/1844120-jamulus/srpm-unpacked/jamulus.spec 2020-06-08
11:11:40.000000000 +0300
@@ -20,5 +20,5 @@
%description
-jamulus is a client / server software which allow to perform
+Jamulus is a client / server software which allow to perform
real-time rehearsal over the internet. It uses Jack Audio Connection Kit
and Opus audio codec to manage the audio session.
@@ -32,11 +32,6 @@
%build
-pushd .
-cd src/res/translation
-lrelease-qt5 *.ts
-popd
-
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 32
- %qmake_qt5 Jamulus.pro CONFIG+="noupcasename opus_shared_lib"
+ %qmake_qt5 Jamulus.pro CONFIG+=opus_shared_lib
%else
# -fcf-protection produce an error in an object generatoin ...
@@ -46,5 +41,5 @@
QMAKE_CXXFLAGS_DEBUG="%{__global_compiler_flags} -m64
-mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection
-fcf-protection" \
QMAKE_CXXFLAGS_RELEASE="%{__global_compiler_flags} -m64
-mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection
-fcf-protection" \
- CONFIG+="noupcasename opus_shared_lib"
+ CONFIG+=opus_shared_lib
%endif
@@ -54,11 +49,11 @@
install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/
-install -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
+install -m 755 Jamulus %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/jamulus
install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/
-install -m 644 distributions/%{name}.desktop
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/
+install -m 644 distributions/jamulus.desktop
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/
install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/pixmaps/
-install -m 644 distributions/%{name}.png %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps/
+install -m 644 distributions/jamulus.png %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps/
desktop-file-install \
@@ -66,5 +61,5 @@
--delete-original \
--dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \
- %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
+ %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/jamulus.desktop
%files
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1844120
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Haskell,
PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
--
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
