[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-23d9642273 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-27 02:43:32 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7fb0ebcb35 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-23d9642273 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-23d9642273 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-23d9642273 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7fb0ebcb35 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7fb0ebcb35 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7fb0ebcb35 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7fb0ebcb35 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7fb0ebcb35 -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-23d9642273 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-23d9642273 -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/neatvnc -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016
Aleksei Bavshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Aleksei Bavshin ---
Package approved. Thanks for all the work on this package!
I'm approving bundling of existing Fedora package miniz on the rationale that
upstream already got rid of that and switched to system zlib, but there's no
upstream patch that could be cleanly applied to the released version. Too much
effort to deal with something that would be fixed in the next upstream release.
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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: "ISC License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "BSD
3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 25 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/alebastr/rpmbuild/GIT/neatvnc/1824016-neatvnc/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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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
=
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 --- Comment #4 from Bob Hepple --- This is important stuff, so let's make it right ... SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wayvnc/fedora-31-x86_64/01339484-neatvnc/neatvnc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wayvnc/fedora-31-x86_64/01339484-neatvnc/neatvnc-0.1.0-3.fc31.src.rpm -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 --- Comment #3 from Aleksei Bavshin --- > License: ISC and MIT and Unlicensed and BSD > # miniz is unlicensed: http://unlicense.org Unlicensed -> Unlicense. Would be even better to write a detailed distribution of licenses, i.e. something like this: # main source is ISC # include/sys/queue.h is BSD # bundled miniz is MIT and Unlicense License: ISC and BSD and MIT and Unlicense Otherwise I don't see any issues. Package builds in mock, wayvnc works, requires/provides are good and rpmlint's only significant complaint is about invalid license (Unlicensed). Full output of fedora-review is long, boring and has nothing of note. Thanks for all the work on the package! I'd set both this and wayvnc as approved, but apparently a faulty script did not grant me reviewer permissions in bugzilla and I cannot take the bug or set fedora-review+. I already pinged infra team and they'll fix that sooner or later. Meanwhile... maybe someone could step in and finish the review. -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016 --- Comment #2 from Bob Hepple --- Thanks again. Here is the rebuild: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wayvnc/fedora-31-x86_64/01339314-neatvnc/neatvnc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wayvnc/fedora-31-x86_64/01339314-neatvnc/neatvnc-0.1.0-2.fc31.src.rpm -- 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
[Bug 1824016] Review Request: neatvnc - a liberally licensed VNC server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824016
Aleksei Bavshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alebast...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Aleksei Bavshin ---
Some things to address before formal review:
> License: ISC
ISC and MIT and Unlicense (with comment about bundled miniz)
Also, `Provides: bundled(miniz) = 2.1.0` with a comment that it's already
removed in upstream master.
> BuildRequires: cmake
Not necessary, all dependencies are shipping pkgconfig files. CMake is only
required when you know that there's dependency that does not have pkgconfig
file but provides cmake modules.
> %files
> %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
Please, specify at least one element of SONAME to avoid unnoticed incompatible
SONAME changes[1]. I.e. %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0*
> %{_includedir}/*
I'd prefer this to be more specific, but that's just nitpicking.
> cpu = host_machine.cpu_family()
>
> if cpu == 'x86_64'
> c_args += '-mavx'
> elif cpu == 'arm'
> c_args += '-mfpu=neon'
> endif
It's better to remove that from meson.build with downstream patch. Upstream
issue[2] mentions that at least x86_64 works fine without -mavx, although it
does not specify if there's any noticeable performance loss.
IIRC, Fedora baseline for x86_64 is K8 (no avx support) and for ARM - hardware
without neon instruction set support. I could be wrong about ARM, but it's
still better to keep optimization limited to distribution-wide optflags.
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
[2] https://github.com/any1/neatvnc/issues/21
--
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
