Bug 1998497

> Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/enunes/kmscube-spec/-/blob/master/kmscube.spec
This URL points to a syntax-highlighted, HTML rendition of the spec. Please use "raw file" links.

> %description
> Example KMS/GBM/EGL application
Please don't just repeat the summary here. The description you gave here in the ticket ("kmscube is [...] minimal working state") would be good enough.

> Requires: libdrm libpng
Is this needed? I think rpm should pick these up on its own if the binary actually links to these. (Well, unless it loads them dynamically at runtime.)

Thank you for the review.

(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #1)
> > %description
> > Example KMS/GBM/EGL application
> Please don't just repeat the summary here. The description you gave here in
> the ticket ("kmscube is [...] minimal working state") would be good enough.

I switched it to use the description from the project readme which I think is a little better than the one I made up:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/kmscube/-/raw/master/README.md

> > Requires: libdrm libpng
> Is this needed? I think rpm should pick these up on its own if the binary
> actually links to these. (Well, unless it loads them dynamically at runtime.)

It turns out that all of the dependencies for this package are picked automatically from the linked libraries, so indeed no explicit Requires are needed here.
I rebuilt and retested the package and it still pulls all the same dependencies this way.

I pushed the reviewed spec to https://gitlab.com/enunes/kmscube-spec/-/raw/master/kmscube.spec .

Can you rebuild the package and post a new SRPM? The original link gives a 404.

I triggered a new build in copr and another scratch build in koji:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/enunes/kmscube/build/2777761/
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75665476

A generated SRPM is accessible here: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/enunes/kmscube/fedora-35-x86_64/02777761-kmscube/kmscube-0-20210207.1.git9f63f35.fc35.src.rpm
I think this one is a link that doesn't expire.

Ping, can I get some more feedback on this one?

Debarshi, are you planning to finalize the review anytime soon? If you're currently busy, I could take over the review.

Oops!  This completely fell off my radar.

(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #6)
> Debarshi, are you planning to finalize the review anytime soon? If you're
> currently busy, I could take over the review.

Yes, please feel free to take it over.

Thanks for checking back on this one.
It's been sitting here for a while but I'm still interested in getting this package in Fedora and would appreciate if you can help move this forward.

The license file is not installed. Adding "%license COPYING" to %files will do the trick.

> Release: %{commitdate}.1.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
This will confuse rpmdev-bumspec, making it produce garbage
("%{commitdate}.1.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}.1" when I tried it) and possibly messing up automatic rebuilds.
The proper value would be "1.%{commitdate}.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}".
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #9)
> > Release: %{commitdate}.1.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
> This will confuse rpmdev-bumspec, making it produce garbage
> ("%{commitdate}.1.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}.1" when I tried it) and possibly
> messing up automatic rebuilds.
> The proper value would be "1.%{commitdate}.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}".
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
> #_snapshots

If I understand it correctly this would also mean that we forever need to increase that number even when bumping to a newer snapshot, since Version needs to stay at 0.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_upstream_has_never_chosen_a_version
Is that the way it should work?

Yes, the number will increase forever.

> dnf repoquery --all --arch=x86_64,noarch --queryformat '%{NAME} %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}' | grep ' 0-'
This gives me some 900 packages with a 0 version. Quite a lot of those use "0.X.SNAPSHOT" as release,
instead of just "X.SNAPSHOT", but yeah, it seems that's how this is supposed to work.

Ok, I adjusted the versioning and license file install and here is the new result:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82374354
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/enunes/kmscube/build/3297771/

https://gitlab.com/enunes/kmscube-spec/-/raw/master/kmscube.spec
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/enunes/kmscube/fedora-35-x86_64/03297771-kmscube/kmscube-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc35.src.rpm

Package approved.


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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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]: 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).
[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.
[-]: 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:
[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: kmscube-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          kmscube-debuginfo-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          kmscube-debugsource-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          kmscube-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.src.rpm
kmscube.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kmscube.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kmscube
kmscube.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary texturator
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: kmscube-debuginfo-0-1.20210207.git9f63f35.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/kmscube/-/archive/9f63f359fab1b5d8e862508e4e51c9dfe339ccb0/kmscube-9f63f359fab1b5d8e862508e4e51c9dfe339ccb0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8af4c16f79b042c991ed1166d8d92e47f65a04b9b8ec7c3d3b72d1a17fa0e597
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8af4c16f79b042c991ed1166d8d92e47f65a04b9b8ec7c3d3b72d1a17fa0e597


Requires
--------
kmscube (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libEGL.so.1()(64bit)
    libGLESv2.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdrm.so.2()(64bit)
    libgbm.so.1()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgstallocators-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgstapp-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgstbase-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgstvideo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

kmscube-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

kmscube-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
kmscube:
    kmscube
    kmscube(x86-64)

kmscube-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    kmscube-debuginfo
    kmscube-debuginfo(x86-64)

kmscube-debugsource:
    kmscube-debugsource
    kmscube-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1998497
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, R, PHP, Python, Java, fonts, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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

Closing this since the package is now available in F36 and Rawhide.