Bug 2275556

This package built on Copr and review templates: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7321386

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://kanru.fedorapeople.org/ibus-array-0.2.2%5E20230502g06146c5-1.fc41.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 403 Forbidden 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://kanru.fedorapeople.org/ibus-array.spec
SRPM URL: https://kanru.fedorapeople.org/ibus-array-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.src.rpm

Description:
Array 30 input method for IBus that uses the latest keymap table
and follows the Array input method spec implementation.

Fedora Account System Username: kanru

I'm taking this one. I have a simple Python package in return: bug 2274514.

At first glance, I only encountered some minor things:

- upstream has released version 0.2.3
- NEWS file is empty: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-array/NEWS
- `main.py` needs a look: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ibus-array/setup/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
  (the shebang is wrong (or needs to be dropped altogether), not sure about the location of the file)

I'll drop a proper review here later on today.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Notes
=====

[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
=> No devel sub package provided. Not sure if it makes sense for this package, but there are some header files.

[!]: Latest version is packaged.
=> Upstream has released version 0.2.3, please update before importing

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
=> Upstream doesn't provide any tests. Would be nice if they were. Not blocking the review, though.

[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
=> Not a problem. This is the usual rpmautospec expansion happening.

[!] ibus-array.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-array/NEWS

=> I think upstream decided to use `Changelog` instead. Please remove `NEWS` from %files. No point in including empty files.

[!] ibus-array.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ibus-array/setup/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3

=> Please ensure the file is executable and uses the proper Python shebang.
   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 1151 bytes in 4 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
[?]: 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:
[-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5376000 bytes in /usr/share
[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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ibus-array-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          ibus-array-debuginfo-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          ibus-array-debugsource-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          ibus-array-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts ============================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpartgcd0h')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

ibus-array.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-array/NEWS
ibus-array.src: E: spelling-error ('keymap', '%description -l en_US keymap -> key map, key-map, mapmaker')
ibus-array.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('keymap', '%description -l en_US keymap -> key map, key-map, mapmaker')
ibus-array.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ibus-array/setup/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
====================================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.9 s =======================================================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ibus-array-debuginfo-0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
============================================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts ============================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpu8c3wru7')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

======================================================================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =======================================================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for zh_TW.
(none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for zh_TW.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 3

ibus-array.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-array/NEWS
ibus-array.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('keymap', '%description -l en_US keymap -> key map, key-map, mapmaker')
ibus-array.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/ibus-array/setup/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/lexical/ibus-array/archive/969cf4ba8d910574007d38989dac5b0e1f8aea15.tar.gz#/ibus-array-969cf4ba8d910574007d38989dac5b0e1f8aea15.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 482504e02eaa18ac9d35c7b6756f96befe447a2b2e3addf3a4f49edcd2746d50
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 482504e02eaa18ac9d35c7b6756f96befe447a2b2e3addf3a4f49edcd2746d50


Requires
--------
ibus-array (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/sh
    ibus
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libibus-1.0.so.5()(64bit)
    libopencc.so.1.1()(64bit)
    libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ibus-array-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

ibus-array-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
ibus-array:
    ibus-array
    ibus-array(x86-64)

ibus-array-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    ibus-array-debuginfo
    ibus-array-debuginfo(x86-64)

ibus-array-debugsource:
    ibus-array-debugsource
    ibus-array-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/sandro/devel/fedora/fedora-review/2275556-ibus-array/srpm/ibus-array.spec	2024-04-23 11:19:58.209252340 +0200
+++ /home/sandro/devel/fedora/fedora-review/2275556-ibus-array/srpm-unpacked/ibus-array.spec	2024-04-19 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global snapdate 20240419
 %global commit  969cf4ba8d910574007d38989dac5b0e1f8aea15
@@ -49,3 +59,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Fri Apr 19 2024 Kan-Ru Chen <kanru> - 0.2.2^20240419g969cf4b-1
+- 0.2.2^20240419
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2275556
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Java, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

In addition to the notes above, I was wondering how this software works. Is it a standalone application? Or does it provide an additional input method to be selected with another tool?

Thanks for the review! I'll import the latest release and fix the shebang issue later today.

(In reply to Sandro from comment #6)
> In addition to the notes above, I was wondering how this software works. Is
> it a standalone application? Or does it provide an additional input method
> to be selected with another tool?

It is like an extension to ibus. On gnome this will appear as a new input source for
Chinese (Taiwan) in the keyboard setting. On other desktop this can be enabled via
ibus-setup.

(In reply to Sandro from comment #5)
> [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> => No devel sub package provided. Not sure if it makes sense for this
> package, but there are some header files.

This makes sense. It is only an end user application.
 
> [!]: Latest version is packaged.
> => Upstream has released version 0.2.3, please update before importing

Yeah, I didn't expect them to release a new version but it seems like my upstream
PR nudged them. I'll import the new version.

> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> => Upstream doesn't provide any tests. Would be nice if they were. Not
> blocking the review, though.

+1

> [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>      Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
>      attached diff).
> => Not a problem. This is the usual rpmautospec expansion happening.
> 
> [!] ibus-array.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/ibus-array/NEWS
> 
> => I think upstream decided to use `Changelog` instead. Please remove `NEWS`
> from %files. No point in including empty files.

Will do.

> [!] ibus-array.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/share/ibus-array/setup/main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
> 
> => Please ensure the file is executable and uses the proper Python shebang.
>    See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs

Thanks!

Spec URL: https://kanru.fedorapeople.org/ibus-array.spec
SRPM URL: https://kanru.fedorapeople.org/ibus-array-0.2.3-1.fc41.src.rpm

All issues have been addressed. Package is APPROVED!

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ibus-array

FEDORA-2024-6de133fcac (ibus-array-0.2.3-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6de133fcac

FEDORA-2024-6de133fcac (ibus-array-0.2.3-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-62f7e93d7e (ibus-array-0.2.3-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-62f7e93d7e

FEDORA-2024-62f7e93d7e has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-62f7e93d7e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-62f7e93d7e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-62f7e93d7e (ibus-array-0.2.3-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.