Bug 1787619

I am ready for review swap.

We will handle it by tucnak2 rename and rebase, see bug 1655198 for details. The libzia review (bug 1787618) is still needed.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1655198 ***

Unfortunately, we need re-review according to package renaming guidelines, so reopening.

This is request to rename tucnak2 to tucnak and rebase it to 4.x version. Libzia is already packaged in Fedora. I am ready for review swap.

Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak-4.18-1.fc30.src.rpm

(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3)
> Unfortunately, we need re-review according to package renaming guidelines,
> so reopening.
> 
> This is request to rename tucnak2 to tucnak and rebase it to 4.x version.
> Libzia is already packaged in Fedora. I am ready for review swap.
> 
> Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak.spec
> SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak-4.18-1.fc30.src.rpm

To clarify this request, we agreed on renaming the tucnak2 package with the tucnak2 maintainer and I became tucnak2 co-maintainer.

 - Please add a comment explaining why the patch is needed:

Patch0:		tucnak-4.18-soundwrapper.patch


 - Split your BR one per line is preferred

 - desktop-file-install %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop → desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop

 - build fails at configure:

********
Missing mandatory libraries:  libglib2
********
configure: error: missing mandatory library/libraries
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qBKLsx (%build)  

 - BuildRequires:	libzia = %{version}
 → BuildRequires:	libzia-devel = %{version}

 - libizia-devel should Requires SDL-devel, please fix libizia package

In file included from /usr/include/libzia/zbat.h:15,
                 from /usr/include/libzia/libzia.h:21,
                 from header.h:38,
                 from alsa.c:13:
/usr/include/libzia/zsdl.h:17:10: fatal error: SDL.h: No such file or directory
   17 | #include <SDL.h>
      |          ^~~~~~~

 - Same issue, Requires gtk2-devel, libftdi-devel from libizia-devel

In file included from /usr/include/libzia/libzia.h:35,
                 from header.h:38,
                 from bfu.c:13:
/usr/include/libzia/zfiledlg.h:18:10: fatal error: gtk/gtk.h: No such file or directory
   18 | #include <gtk/gtk.h>
      |          ^~~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.

/usr/include/libzia/zhdkeyb.h:19:10: fatal error: ftdi.h: No such file or directory
   19 | #include <ftdi.h>
      |          ^~~~~~~~


 - Build still fails after all this:

/usr/bin/ld: menu2.o:(.bss+0xa20): multiple definition of `operator_'; menu1.o:(.bss+0x3f88): first defined here
/usr/bin/ld: rotar.o:(.bss+0x18): multiple definition of `hdkeyb'; hdkeyb.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here
/usr/bin/ld: sked.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/sked.c:28: multiple definition of `remark'; menu2.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/menu2.c:66: first defined here
/usr/bin/ld: sked.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/sked.c:27: multiple definition of `callsign'; menu2.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/menu2.c:62: first defined here
/usr/bin/ld: sked.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/sked.c:27: multiple definition of `locator'; menu2.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/menu2.c:62: first defined here
/usr/bin/ld: sked.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/sked.c:28: multiple definition of `time_str'; menu2.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/menu2.c:66: first defined here
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [Makefile:538: tucnak] Error 1

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
>  - Build still fails after all this:
> 
> /usr/bin/ld: menu2.o:(.bss+0xa20): multiple definition of `operator_';
> menu1.o:(.bss+0x3f88): first defined here
> /usr/bin/ld: rotar.o:(.bss+0x18): multiple definition of `hdkeyb';
> hdkeyb.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here
> /usr/bin/ld: sked.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/sked.c:28:
> multiple definition of `remark';
> menu2.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/menu2.c:66: first defined here
> /usr/bin/ld: sked.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/sked.c:27:
> multiple definition of `callsign';
> menu2.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/menu2.c:62: first defined here
> /usr/bin/ld: sked.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/sked.c:27:
> multiple definition of `locator';
> menu2.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/menu2.c:62: first defined here
> /usr/bin/ld: sked.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/sked.c:28:
> multiple definition of `time_str';
> menu2.o:/builddir/build/BUILD/tucnak-4.18/src/menu2.c:66: first defined here
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[2]: *** [Makefile:538: tucnak] Error 1

This is related to this change in GCC 10:

GCC now defaults to -fno-common. As a result, global variable accesses are more efficient on various targets. In C, global variables with multiple tentative definitions now result in linker errors. With -fcommon such definitions are silently merged during linking. 

https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/changes.html

Default to -fno-common

A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable in a header file. If the header is included by several files it results in multiple definitions of the same variable. In previous GCC versions this error is ignored. GCC 10 defaults to -fno-common, which means a linker error will now be reported. To fix this, use extern in header files when declaring global variables, and ensure each global is defined in exactly one C file. As a workaround, legacy C code can be compiled with -fcommon.


      int x;  // tentative definition - avoid in header files

      extern int y;  // correct declaration in a header file
 
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html


Please contact upstream for them to port their code to GCC 10.

I have contacted upstream and they have  already sorted out the issue. See build https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/tucnak/builds/

I suggest to wait until upstream decides to cut a new release and then update libzia and tucnak.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8)
> I have contacted upstream and they have  already sorted out the issue. See
> build https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/tucnak/builds/
> 
> I suggest to wait until upstream decides to cut a new release and then
> update libzia and tucnak.

Thanks, I saw your e-mail, but I was busy with DevConf and related stuff.

Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak-4.20-1.fc32.src.rpm

 - Should be libzia-devel not libzia:

BuildRequires:	libzia-devel = %{version}

 - Make these files UTF-8:

tucnak.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tucnak/AUTHORS
tucnak.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tucnak/ChangeLog

 - Notify upstream about their obsolete FSF address:

tucnak.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/tucnak/COPYING

 - There is obsolete m4 macros used:

[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: tucnak-4.20/configure.ac:2

Patch it with AC_CONFIG_HEADERS and send it upstreamtoo.




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", "FSF All Permissive License", "Expat
     License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)",
     "zlib/libpng license", "Apache License (v2.0)". 152 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/tucnak/review-tucnak/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 368640 bytes in 22 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tucnak-4.20-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          tucnak-debuginfo-4.20-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          tucnak-debugsource-4.20-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          tucnak-4.20-1.fc32.src.rpm
tucnak.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hamradio -> ham radio, ham-radio, radiogram
tucnak.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyer -> keyed, Meyer, Beyer
tucnak.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tucnak/AUTHORS
tucnak.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tucnak/ChangeLog
tucnak.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/tucnak/COPYING
tucnak.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tucnak
tucnak.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tucnak-soundwrapper
tucnak.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hamradio -> ham radio, ham-radio, radiogram
tucnak.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US keyer -> keyed, Meyer, Beyer
tucnak.src:53: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tucnak/tucnak.d
tucnak.src:54: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/tucnak
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings.

Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tucnak/tucnak-4.20-2.fc32.src.rpm

Is it OK now, or is there anything else to address?

Package approved.

Thanks for the reivew, I requested branches.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tucnak

FEDORA-2020-7978a86266 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7978a86266

FEDORA-2020-03cc1abfaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-03cc1abfaf

tucnak-4.20-2.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-2020-03cc1abfaf

tucnak-4.20-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-7978a86266

tucnak-4.20-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

tucnak-4.20-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.