Description: Ricochet is an experiment with a different kind of instant messaging that doesn't trust anyone with your identity, your contact list, or your communications. * You can chat without exposing your identity (or IP address) to anyone * Nobody can discover who your contacts are or when you talk (meta-data-free!) * There are no servers to compromise or operators to intimidate for your information * It's cross-platform and easy for non-technical users SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/ricochet/ricochet-1.1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/ricochet/ricochet.spec rpmlint is clean except for a no-manpage warning; upstream doesn't provide one.
Already packaged and being used by myself :) Will review soon.
1. * There are no servers to compromise or operators to intimidate for your information Why not one line? 2. qmake-qt5 DEFINES+=RICOCHET_NO_PORTABLE CONFIG+=release ue %qmake_qt5. 3. Use macros for paths in %files. https://github.com/ricochet-im/ricochet/blob/master/packaging/rpm/ricochet.spec#L53? Don't copy spec in upstream sources, most of them don't know how to do packaging properly, but least make the software work. 4. install -m 0644 -D -p LICENSE %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/LICENSE install -m 0644 -D -p AUTHORS.md %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/AUTHORS.md install -m 0644 -D -p README.md %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/README.md No, use %doc. Because you must also mark license file as %license.
Uh, comment 1 is not right, submitted too fast. * Nobody can discover who your contacts are or when you talk (meta-data-free!) 80 chars, unfortunately. Drop the leading space. * There are no servers to compromise or operators to intimidate for your information Better add a note in %description like tor about the privacy and security, no one has verified if it's really so-called "for real privacy". Honestly I never trust any softwares like ricochet or similar.
Fixed. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/ricochet/ricochet-1.1.1-2.fc22.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/ricochet/ricochet.spec
Have you had a chance to look at this?
I built and installed it but it fails to run. Message I'm getting when I run it from terminal: QQmlApplicationEngine failed to load component qrc:/ui/main.qml:2 module "QtQuick.Controls" is not installed qrc:/ui/main.qml:3 module "QtQuick.Layouts" is not installed qrc:/ui/main.qml:2 module "QtQuick.Controls" is not installed qrc:/ui/main.qml:3 module "QtQuick.Layouts" is not installed and I get an GUI error: "An error occurred while loading the Ricochet UI. You might be missing plugins or dependency packages." I installed qt5-qtquickcontrols and it seems to work fine.
Thanks, good catch. I updated to 1.1.2 and fixed the requires. Christopher seems to have left Fedora work entirely, so if you'd like to take the review that would be great, and I'd be willing to take one of yours if you have one. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/ricochet/ricochet-1.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/ricochet/ricochet.spec
It would be nice to have Ricochet on Fedora, so I'm willing to do the review. If you want to review one of mine the only thing I have at the moment is #1329886.
Thanks, I'll have a look!
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in ricochet See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [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: [ ]: 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/comzeradd/review/1264700-ricochet/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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: [ ]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ricochet-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: ricochet-1.1.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ricochet-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ricochet-1.1.2-1.fc25.src.rpm ricochet.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ricochet 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ricochet-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ricochet.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ricochet 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- ricochet-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ricochet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libGL.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.6)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Multimedia.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.9()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) qt5-qtquickcontrols rtld(GNU_HASH) tor Provides -------- ricochet-debuginfo: ricochet-debuginfo ricochet-debuginfo(x86-64) ricochet: application() application(ricochet.desktop) ricochet ricochet(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://ricochet.im/releases/1.1.2/ricochet-1.1.2-src.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 97c78d088892e84c95a3e3a4a982883d8e44028848a513a5d7e0231d36325cc3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 97c78d088892e84c95a3e3a4a982883d8e44028848a513a5d7e0231d36325cc3 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m rawhide -b 1264700 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Everything looks good. Spec is clean. Approved.
Thanks, I'll fix the icon and desktop stuff prior to import.
Various revision items are still empty ([ ]). Are they passed or not ? :)
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ricochet
Yes, I noticed that after submitting the comment. It would also be nice to include an appdata file to show up on Software Center, but it's not mandatory. Since I'm a regular Ricochet user I'd be interested to co-maintain it, if that's ok with you.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) > Various revision items are still empty ([ ]). > Are they passed or not ? :) These are either not applicable or have been checked manually.
(In reply to Nikos Roussos from comment #15) > Yes, I noticed that after submitting the comment. It would also be nice to > include an appdata file to show up on Software Center, but it's not > mandatory. > > Since I'm a regular Ricochet user I'd be interested to co-maintain it, if > that's ok with you. Sure, request ACLs and I'll approve.
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5d484b97be
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6b8be49b4f
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a431412697
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5d484b97be
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a431412697
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6b8be49b4f
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ricochet-1.1.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.