Bug 2298050

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=120550323

Hello,
can you edit SPEC file to not contain snapshot version and debug symbols please?
Thank you

Hi, thanks for commenting on this package review request.

The last release from the upstream was in 2016 so the snapshot was needed to get the most up to date version.

I'll ask upstream if they can make a new release instead.

I don't quite understand your request to remove debug symbols. The package provides useful debuginfo so it should be enabled per guideline https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_debuginfo_packages

Lastly, it looks like you are not yet a packager so the review is unofficial. Your review is appreciated, however I'll reset the fedora-review flag so other packagers can review it.

Hello, I want to learn by doing so i want to review it manualy and ask to sponsor it, so i  will set the status back to ?.

And about debug symbols. I dont know this.

Thanks 

Daniel Frantes

Thanks for the initial review, Daniel Frantes.

I think this is part of the IBusChewingForZhTW changes in Fedora 41, and
the package should be available in Fedora 41 soon.

URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IBusChewingForZhTW

I will take this review, and help get the package landed in Fedora 41 repo.

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

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



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

C/C++:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[ ]: 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:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: 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 v2.0 or
     later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* BSD
     3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD
     3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)
     and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]",
     "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "MIT License", "GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License
     [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)
     [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)
     and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention)", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated
     file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 98
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/epico/build/chewing-editor/2298050-chewing-
     editor/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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]: 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 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 3224 bytes in 1 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: chewing-editor-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          chewing-editor-debuginfo-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          chewing-editor-debugsource-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          chewing-editor-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc40.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/tmpdgbhfiqv')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: chewing-editor-debuginfo-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc40.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/tmp75irwtn7')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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

 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/chewing/chewing-editor/archive/0c25a466458dcf6ad94fa4ca3501babb85a3cce2.tar.gz#/chewing-editor-0c25a466458dcf6ad94fa4ca3501babb85a3cce2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 020e24c9fa2f52f4a03f8cc34987a5022e41686fa18436e44b56d12f00e0027c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 020e24c9fa2f52f4a03f8cc34987a5022e41686fa18436e44b56d12f00e0027c


Requires
--------
chewing-editor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libchewing.so.3()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

chewing-editor-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

chewing-editor-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
chewing-editor:
    application()
    application(chewing-editor.desktop)
    chewing-editor
    chewing-editor(x86-64)

chewing-editor-debuginfo:
    chewing-editor-debuginfo
    chewing-editor-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)

chewing-editor-debugsource:
    chewing-editor-debugsource
    chewing-editor-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/epico/build/chewing-editor/2298050-chewing-editor/srpm/chewing-editor.spec	2024-08-27 10:12:52.908321515 +0800
+++ /home/epico/build/chewing-editor/2298050-chewing-editor/srpm-unpacked/chewing-editor.spec	2024-07-15 08:00:00.000000000 +0800
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.6.5)
+## 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 20240716
 %global commit  0c25a466458dcf6ad94fa4ca3501babb85a3cce2
@@ -60,4 +70,7 @@
 
 
-%autochangelog
-- 
+%changelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Mon Jul 15 2024 John Doe <packager> - 0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec

Here are some suggestions for the spec file.
Please update the spec file and the srpm package, thanks!

Please define the shortcommit macro and use this macro in the following lines.

%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})

Version:        0.1.1^%{snapdate}g%{shortcommit}
Source0:        %{url}/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz#/chewing-editor-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz

URL: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_hosting_services

Please update the %changelog section

%autochangelog
- 
=>
%changelog
%autochangelog

Please update the srpm package to use the same spec file in the spec URL.

[!]: 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).

Thanks for the review! I'll make those changes.

Spec URL: https://kanru.fedorapeople.org/20240827/chewing-editor.spec
SRPM URL: https://kanru.fedorapeople.org/20240827/chewing-editor-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc41.src.rpm

@pwu updated.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7947939
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2298050-chewing-editor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07947939-chewing-editor/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

This spec file and package looks good to me now.

Package is APPROVED

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chewing-editor

FEDORA-2024-7ea500b842 (chewing-editor-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-7ea500b842

FEDORA-2024-7ea500b842 (chewing-editor-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-c26c7a6a71 (chewing-editor-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c26c7a6a71

FEDORA-2024-c26c7a6a71 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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-c26c7a6a71 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c26c7a6a71

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

FEDORA-2024-c26c7a6a71 (chewing-editor-0.1.1^20240716g0c25a46-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.