Bug 2140323

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05047412-ustreamer/ustreamer.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05047412-ustreamer/ustreamer-5.24-1.fc37.src.rpm

1. Change License: to GPL-3.0-or-later according https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

2. Latest version is 5.34.

3. It is good to change 
Source: https://github.com/pikvm/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
to
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

4. µStreamer in Description is typo?

5. Change %setup -q to %autosetup

6. At %build section add first %set_build_flags and remove CFLAGS='%{?build_cflags}' \ LDFLAGS='%{?build_ldflags}' \

7. Since it is server application may be you can add simple systemd-service file for running it?

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05145941-ustreamer/ustreamer.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05145941-ustreamer/ustreamer-5.34-1.fc37.src.rpm

Thanks for the review and suggestion

1. 2. 3. 5. 6. changed

4. actually the author of the package intends to use the greek letter. But the package name has to be ascii only, so u is used to represent mu.

7. the server need a proper /dev/video* to run properly. Currently, it is used by other packages calling that knows which video device to use to start the server. For example the only use case I am aware of is the kvmd.

I mean symbol "Â" - why it is in desscription? "µ" is OK.

Could you point me to which line contains this character? I am unable to see it in my editor and online:

https://github.com/tao-j/copr/blob/main/ustreamer/ustreamer.spec

Thanks.

Line 18 at this URL https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05145941-ustreamer/ustreamer.spec

What's the guideline of .spec file encoding? The file is saved as UTF-8, and the link you shared is because websever does not explictly declare it as an utf-8 in html or http header(my guess), thus resulting the extra A, since it is interpreted as ASCII (i.e. 8 bytes per char) And utf8 is var length code.

See: UTF-8 bytes as Latin-1 characters bytes

https://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/utf-8.cgi?input=%C2%B5&mode=char

According to this, it seems that we are good
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_encoding

Add %changelog

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05149917-ustreamer/ustreamer.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05149917-ustreamer/ustreamer-5.34-1.fc37.src.rpm

Added changelog

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05149926-ustreamer/ustreamer.spec

Approved.

But you still need a sponsor?

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 General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU
     General Public License, Version 2". 29 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/vascom/2140323-ustreamer/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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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 20480 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

===== 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: ustreamer-5.34-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          ustreamer-debuginfo-5.34-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          ustreamer-debugsource-5.34-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          ustreamer-5.34-1.fc38.src.rpm
===================================================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpnos86b5a')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

ustreamer.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
ustreamer.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
ustreamer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
ustreamer-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
====================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 1.2 s =====================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ustreamer-debuginfo-5.34-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
===================================================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpg8bn01ei')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

ustreamer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
====================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s =====================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 3

ustreamer.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
ustreamer-debugsource.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
ustreamer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pikvm/ustreamer/archive/v5.34/ustreamer-5.34.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 28854e140b30b9d1769b83f86cc7b9c9e9ad6a5d65d7b7cbd8c9d6b95e6c01d6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28854e140b30b9d1769b83f86cc7b9c9e9ad6a5d65d7b7cbd8c9d6b95e6c01d6


Requires
--------
ustreamer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
    libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.5)(64bit)
    libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.6)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libevent-2.1.so.7()(64bit)
    libevent_pthreads-2.1.so.7()(64bit)
    libgpiod.so.2()(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62()(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEGTURBO_6.2)(64bit)
    libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libsystemd.so.0()(64bit)
    libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ustreamer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

ustreamer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
ustreamer:
    ustreamer
    ustreamer(x86-64)

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

ustreamer-debugsource:
    ustreamer-debugsource
    ustreamer-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2140323
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, R, Perl, Java, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Yes, I do need a sponsor. After that I am going to co-maintain one package and submit one additional package related to ustreamer: kvmd.

Greatly appreciate your help and review.

I can be your sponsor.
You need to meet the conditions.

Thanks, that's great.

Can you specify which condition I am not meeting right now?

Now you at packager group.
Review Request approved.
You should request creating git for that package.

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

ustreamer has been in the updates for a week. Thanks all.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05206742-ustreamer/ustreamer.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tao-j/pikvm/fedora-37-x86_64/05206742-ustreamer/ustreamer-5.36-1.fc37.src.rpm

diff: https://github.com/tao-j/copr/commit/da113b85cbe7172d05069b28d76b709ea0574310

Can anyone take a look whether this is the right way to add the python package? Thanks.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5206749
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2140323-ustreamer/srpm-builds/05206749/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

You should use pkgconfig. For example:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(python)
And may be
BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools)

Thanks for the quick suggestion.

According to: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependencies
> As mentioned above, each Python package MUST explicitly BuildRequire python3-devel.

Does this only applies to the single spec file with python-* only? Since I am building two packages at the same time. 


I kind of borrowed their idea to build the binary + python3 bindings:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libgpiod/blob/rawhide/f/libgpiod.spec

Do you mean two independent packages or two subpackages from one spec-file?

I meant
> two subpackages from one spec-file

Which is the case for libgpiod and ustreamer.

You don't need to specify different BR for subpackages.

(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #4)
> I mean symbol "Â" - why it is in desscription? "µ" is OK.

This is a bug in Copr.