Bug 445537

Is this really intended to replace (real)vnc?  (noticed the Obsoletes)

Just a notice: I've compared 2 weeks ago the behaviour of vnc (from Centos 5)
and tightvnc (version 1.3.9 from rpmforge, still on the same Centos 5). Despite
all our efforts (we tried absolutely all available optimization switches, such
as    -depth 8, -compresslevel 9, -quality 4 ) access via tightvnc to a remote
server (which is completely out of my reach; I assume it runs RHEL, no idea
about the version ) was painfully slow (delays in the terms of seconds). Using
vnc -LowColourLevel 2 brought things closer to normality. RTT were in the
100-110 ms range in all cases.

Does this newer version improve things ?

Current TightVNC trunk (and upcomming 1.5 version) is forked RealVNC source with
many improvements + bugfixes so behavior should be same as current (Real)vnc.
More details are on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TightVNC.

rpmlint returns:
tightvnc.src:164: E: files-attr-not-set
tightvnc.src:165: E: files-attr-not-set
tightvnc.src:166: E: files-attr-not-set
tightvnc.src:167: E: files-attr-not-set
tightvnc.src: W: strange-permission vncserver.init 0755
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings.

You forgot to do:
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
in the main %files section

The strange permission warning is, I think, because all files in your package
have 0664 (note the group-write permission)

Ok, I fixed problems written above. Only vncserver.init should be leaved as is.

http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc-1.5.0-0.2.svn2562.fc10.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc.spec

I updated source to latest trunk:

http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc.spec
http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc-1.5.0-0.3.svn2831.fc10.src.rpm

few notes
- you can use "svn export" instead of "svn checkout" (or a even script like http://fedora.danny.cz/fedora-getsvn), the source archive will be smaller, but when you are using upstream released snapshots, use them
- the EVRs in Obsoletes/Provides are inconsistent between main package and -server subpackage and I don't think that the main package should contain Obsol/Prov for vnc-server
- better use --with-os-name="Fedora" in xserver's %configure (instead of "Fedora 11")
- replace /etc with %{_sysconfdir}, /etc/rc.d/init.d with %{_initddir} in %build and %install sections
- don't add X-Red-Hat-Extra into desktop file, fix the file directly instead of using command line options, use fedora as vendor, missing BR: desktop-file-utils - more about desktop files at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files

(In reply to comment #7)
> few notes
> - you can use "svn export" instead of "svn checkout" (or a even script like
> http://fedora.danny.cz/fedora-getsvn), the source archive will be smaller, but
> when you are using upstream released snapshots, use them

good hint

> - the EVRs in Obsoletes/Provides are inconsistent between main package and
> -server subpackage and I don't think that the main package should contain
> Obsol/Prov for vnc-server

fixed

> - better use --with-os-name="Fedora" in xserver's %configure (instead of
> "Fedora 11")

might be

> - replace /etc with %{_sysconfdir}, /etc/rc.d/init.d with %{_initddir} in
> %build and %install sections

fixed

> - don't add X-Red-Hat-Extra into desktop file, fix the file directly instead of
> using command line options, use fedora as vendor, missing BR:
> desktop-file-utils - more about desktop files at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files

should be fixed as well.

Updated srpm & spec:
http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc.spec
http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc-1.5.0-0.4.svn2975.fc10.src.rpm

formal review is here, see the notes below:

OK	source files match upstream (checked with diff between the included sources and fresh export from SVN)
BAD	package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK	specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK	dist tag is present.
OK	build root is correct.
OK	license field matches the actual license.
OK	license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK	latest version is being packaged.
OK	BuildRequires are proper.
BAD	compiler flags are appropriate.
OK	%clean is present.
OK	package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK	debuginfo package looks complete.
BAD	rpmlint is silent.
BAD	final provides and requires look sane.
N/A	%check is present and all tests pass.
OK	no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
BAD	owns the directories it creates.
OK	doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK	no duplicates in %files.
OK	file permissions are appropriate.
BAD	scriptlets present
OK	code, not content.
OK	documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK	%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK	no headers.
OK	no pkgconfig files.
OK	no libtool .la droppings.
OK*	is a GUI app, desktop file installed

- include instructions for getting the sources - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control

- snapshot package must contain date in the Release tag - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

- don't disable optimization (export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -O0") - drop the -O0

- rpmlint complains:
tightvnc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/tightvnc-1.5.0-svn2975/unix/xserver/*/*.[ch] (about 12 files)
	run "chmod a-x unix/xserver/*/*.[ch]" after copying the xorg-x11-server-Xorg sources into the tightvnc tree
tightvnc-server.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name vncserver
	can be ignored

- the EVR in Obsoletes/Provides must be greater than the EVR of the package we are replacing (use EVR=4.1.2-36, no dist tag) - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages

- server subpackage should have "Requires: xorg-x11-server-Xorg" for the ownership of %{_libdir}/xorg/modules/extensions/

- the "always succeed" clause (" || :") is missing from the server's postun scriptlet and from gtk-update-icon-cache too - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_spec_file_scriptlets and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache

- remove the X-Red-Hat-Extra from the desktop file

(In reply to comment #9)
> formal review is here, see the notes below:
> 
> BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines.

Fixed

> BAD compiler flags are appropriate.

Fixed, -O0 was (and probably will be during early F11 cycle) temporary option because it makes core dumps more usable.

> BAD scriptlets present

Fixed

> - rpmlint complains:
> tightvnc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
> /usr/src/debug/tightvnc-1.5.0-svn2975/unix/xserver/*/*.[ch] (about 12 files)
>  run "chmod a-x unix/xserver/*/*.[ch]" after copying the xorg-x11-server-Xorg
> sources into the tightvnc tree

Fixed

> 
> - the EVR in Obsoletes/Provides must be greater than the EVR of the package we
> are replacing (use EVR=4.1.2-36, no dist tag) - see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages

Fixed

> 
> - server subpackage should have "Requires: xorg-x11-server-Xorg" for the
> ownership of %{_libdir}/xorg/modules/extensions/

dependency on xorg-x11-server-Xorg doesn't seem so good for me so I moved libvnc.so module to server-module subpackage which requires xorg-x11-server-Xorg

> - remove the X-Red-Hat-Extra from the desktop file

Removed

Updated sources:
http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc.spec
http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc-1.5.0-0.5.20081015svn3019.fc10.src.rpm

Yet 2 little issues
- the License tag should be GPLv2+ (sorry I missed that in the first round)
- include instructions for getting the sources - see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
(svn export https://vnc-tight.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/vnc-tight/trunk -r %{revision} tightvnc; tar czvf ...)

And one suggestion - can you move this section

cp -r %{_datadir}/xorg-x11-server-source/* unix/xserver
pushd unix/xserver
for all in `find . -type f -perm -001`; do
	chmod -x "$all"
done
patch -p0 < ../xserver.patch

from %build to %prep, because this is in fact source preparation too.

And last thing (not related to the review) could be refreshing the xserver.patch, because it applies quite unclean.

All problems should be fixed:

http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc-1.5.0-0.6.20081015svn3021.fc10.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc.spec

(In reply to comment #12)
> All problems should be fixed:
> 
> http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc-1.5.0-0.6.20081015svn3021.fc10.src.rpm
> http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc.spec

Well, SRPM written above is broken, updated one is:
http://people.redhat.com/atkac/tightvnc-1.5.0-0.7.20081015svn3022.fc10.src.rpm

All issues are resolved and this package is APPROVED. Great work, Adam.

CVS request is written below, please create early F10 branch and devel:

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: tightvnc
Short Description: A TightVNC remote display system
Owners: atkac
Branches: F-10

cvs done.

Why there are still no packages of this?

You are probably looking at wrong place. It is in Rawhide.

[root@localhost etc]# rpm -q tightvnc
tightvnc-1.5.0-0.9.20081120svn3200.fc11.x86_64

CVS request was for F-10 and it's not same as rawhide.
Why there is no tightvnc for F-10?

If you need help with building this package on F-10, just tell me.

There is little misunderstanding - Adam's intention was to do the move from vnc to tightvnc in F-11, but to achieve that in the time of the CVS request, it was required to ask for F-10 branch whose content will be included in F-10 (but it will remain empty here) and only the content of devel will go into rawhide even when usual devel branch goes into F-to-be-10.

Is it possible to build this package in F-10 branch without "Obsoletes" attribute?
Or is there a problem with that?
I think an empty folder is not a good idea. Also there is an problem, that this package is included in pkgdb:
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/tightvnc#Fedora10

I like tightvnc and real-vnc is not what I want.

I know, that I can rebuild this for myself, but It's nicer to have this package in distribution.

(In reply to comment #21)
> Is it possible to build this package in F-10 branch without "Obsoletes"
> attribute?
> Or is there a problem with that?
> I think an empty folder is not a good idea. Also there is an problem, that this
> package is included in pkgdb:
>   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/tightvnc#Fedora10
> 
> I like tightvnc and real-vnc is not what I want.
> 

Well, I can build tightvnc for F10 but I don't see reason for it. Current trunk tightvnc is forked RealVNC source - it is completely different from "old" tightvnc 1.2.9 & 1.3.9.

Hmm, I am sorry. You right.

What's happened, that this nice project is where they started? Back on realvnc source.