Bug 2216126

Use Fedora linux packages

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06097513-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayermga8wally.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06097513-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayer-1.0.46-5.surf.fc39.src.rpm

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Hi,
I don'r see how to see doc value.
Doc is the wiki at GH :
https://github.com/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/wiki

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Hi, I'm aware to answer at infos request

Hello,
I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been
reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package
builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer.

If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my
apologies, feel free to close it.

[fedora-review-service-build]

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06097513-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayer-1.0.46-5.surf.fc39.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #7)
> There seems to be some problem with the following file.
> SRPM URL:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06097513-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayer-1.0.46-5.surf.fc39.src.
> rpm
> Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
> Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
> 
> 
> ---
> This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
> https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
> 
> If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
> Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Hi, yes, of course, since 2023, repo was auto deleted.
you should use the root dir :

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/
or, at your convenience
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06097513-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayer-1.0.46-5.surf.fc39.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #9)
> There seems to be some problem with the following file.
> SRPM URL:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06097513-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayer-1.0.46-5.surf.fc39.src.
> rpm
> Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
> Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
> 
> 
> ---
> This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
> https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
> 
> If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
> Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09771021-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayermga8wally.spec

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06097513-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayer-1.0.46-5.surf.fc39.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Spec URL: <https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09771021-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayermga8wally.spec>
SRPM URL: <https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/surfzoid/QtVsPlayer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09771021-QtVsPlayer/QtVsPlayer-1.0.52-10.surf.fc44.src.rpm>
Description: <QtVsPlayer can read local video files of Hikvision and display blue, green and red vectors.
This is the end of an full network backup solution in combination with HikNetExtractor.
https://github.com/surfzoid/HikNetExtractor
It read real time live stream.
Join us on IRC https://matrix.to/#/#QtVsPlayer:libera.chat or https://matrix.to/#/#QtVsPlayer:matrix.org
 
This software use the PlayCtrl SDK libraries from HikVision, those librarys are under GPL-2 license.
You will find it in /usr/share/licenses/QtVsPlayer/Licenses_playctrl_linux.txt or in SDK archive from HikVision website :
https://www.hikvision.com/content/dam/hikvision/en/support/download/sdk/device-network-sdk/EN-HCNetSDKV6.1.9.4_build20220412_linux64.rar
Licences are in the doc dir.>
Fedora Account System Username:surfzoid

Hi,

This package has not been looked at in some time, so I thought I would have a look.

Fails To Build (FTB) on many architectures, see link below.

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kathenas/generic-fedora-rawhide-all-with-review-not-production/build/10171618/

Builds correctly for x64, however we seem to have non existent 'Requires', see below.

Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides lib64openal1 needed by QtVsPlayer-1.0.52-10.surf.fc45.x86_64 from @commandline
  - nothing provides lib64qt5network5 needed by QtVsPlayer-1.0.52-10.surf.fc45.x86_64 from @commandline
  - nothing provides qtbase5-common needed by QtVsPlayer-1.0.52-10.surf.fc45.x86_64 from @commandline

Regards

Phil

Hi, 
Builds correctly for x64 and arm64
I never did anything for other arch, also i see, missing dependencies are standard system library.

(In reply to surfzoid from comment #14)
> Hi, 
> Builds correctly for x64 and arm64
> I never did anything for other arch, also i see, missing dependencies are
> standard system library.

Packages are expected to build on all primary architectures in Fedora, not just x86_64; if they don’t, we treat it as a bug and try to fix it. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures.

> missing dependencies are standard system library.

If the package doesn’t have the correct dependencies, that needs to be corrected in the submission. In any case, you shouldn’t have explicit library dependencies without a documented justification (such as libraries loaded at runtime with dlopen() rather than linked dynamically): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires.

This needs some work to bring it in line with packaging guidelines. A few things I see at a glance:

- Conditional macros for other distributions are not permitted: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_legibility. Same for workarounds like __provides_exclude that aren’t needed in Fedora or in active EPEL branches.
- Conditional macros for EPEL7 should be removed; EPEL7 reached end of life two years ago. Same for conditionals for long-since end-of-lifed Fedora releases.
- The License field must be an SPDX expression: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
- The source archive contains a massive pile of pre-compiled binaries/libraries and mysterious tarballs. You must remove these in %prep to prove they aren’t used, and ask upstream not to ship them, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries. In this case, I would say even that isn’t enough, and you need to strip them out of the source archive and document how you’ve done so, as in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-upstream-uses-prohibited-code. This is because there are so many binaries, and their origin and nature is so unclear, that it’s not practical to determine whether they fall under licenses that allow their distribution in Fedora at all, even in the source RPMs.
- You should not use "%global debug_package %{nil}" without good and explicit justification, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/. Lack of usable debuginfo suggests that the build is not respecting distribution compiler flags, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags, or, *much worse*, that it includes some of the pre-compiled binaries mentioned above.
- The spec file uses various obsolete fields and sections, such as Group: and %clean.
- The spec file does something really dubious with ldconfig, symlinking the unversioned libz.so from zlib-ng-compat-devel into a private directory as libz.so.1 and then adding it to the system linker search path. This is probably an incorrect workaround to linkage issues from shipping pre-compiled binaries. It certainly needs very clear and detailed explanation and justification.
- All of the %pre*/%post* scriptlets look wrong or obsolete.

The above isn’t by any means a full review, but it gives an idea of the kind of work that needs to be done before a detailed review would be possible.

Hi, i understand and thank you for your job.
this will be too more complicated for me.
Binary are proprietary Hikvision sdk, i 'm partener and got agreement from them, it could be a solution to help user to download it from my github.

OK, thank you for the follow-up and for your efforts in developing this software!

Everything in Fedora needs to be built from source and distributed under an approved free-software license, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval/#_allowed_licenses. It sounds like that won’t be possible here, which means this software can’t be packaged in Fedora. I’ll therefore go ahead and close this review request. Please feel free to reopen it if you believe I’ve misunderstood or if the situation changes.