Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/marble-widget/marble-widget.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/marble-widget/marble-widget-15.08.3-50.fc23.src.rpm Description: Marble Widget Library for Qt4 Fedora Account System Username: rdieter Compatibility package, since newer versions of marble (15.12+) dropped Qt4 support.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12308855
rdieter's scratch build of marble-widget-15.08.3-50.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12308855
Are you interested in a review swap? Maybe lxqt-sudo (bug #1293156) or lximage-qt (rhbz#1293075) is for you.
sorry, typo: lximage-qt (bug #1293075)
ok, I'll do at least one (or both as time permits)
Why do we need marble-widget still with Qt4 support? I fear a compat package would complicate things a lot. Please tell what packages depend on it.
So far, only calligra and libkgeomap still need it
I don't see how such a simple compat package "complicates things" in any way. You don't have to do the review if you don't like this package.
- as stated on the old one. Please update URL. "The Marble website has moved to marble.kde.org" - Do you mean stable instead of unstable? "The requested URL /unstable/applications/15.08.3/src/marble-15.08.3.tar.xz was not found on this server." - Do we expect upstream to accept still those patches for the qt4 branch? - Maybe add a comment about the discontinued qt4 branch, so we don't confuse with a further update that happens for Qt5 only in the separated marble main package. - Subpackage widget-data exists in both marble-widget.spec and marble.spec files. How to difference between both with different versions (15.08.3 vs. 15.12.0)? Do you really want to name it marble-widget-widget-data (mind twice widget) in case of marble-widget.spec? That can not work with Requires: %{name}-data . There's no %files widget-data in marble-widget.spec, so I guess it's just a copy-paste error somehow? - Why exclude astro as it has been activated in the old subpackage from marble.spec? Is that a plugin and now obsolete? > -DBUILD_MARBLE_PLUGINS:BOOL=OFF - The mobile switch gets turned ON in marble-widget.spec but it was OFF in marble.spec? > -DMOBILE:BOOL=OFF
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines => ignore ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [!]: 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. => Dependency to marble-common that includes license file from marble.spec? Please include the license file in marble-widget package to prevent any confusion about weird implicitly assumed dependency. We should not rely on a license of another separate package, also if it's just for compatibility cause license could change in future and we want not for the compat package. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* BSD (2 clause)", "QPL", "zlib/libpng", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 3789 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder /fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/licensecheck.txt => Compat package, license is the same as in marble. [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. => see above [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/marble(marble- widget-qt5-devel, marble-widget-devel) => see my comment about marble-widget-data / marble-widget-widget-data [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines => Please fix license issue. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in marble- widget-devel , marble-widget-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/builder/fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/results/marble-widget-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/results/marble-widget-devel-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/results/marble-widget-debuginfo-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/results/marble-widget-debuginfo-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/builder/fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/results/marble-widget-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/results/marble-widget-devel-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/results/marble-widget-debuginfo-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1294211-marble-widget/results/marble-widget-debuginfo-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: marble-widget-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm marble-widget-devel-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm marble-widget-debuginfo-15.08.3-50.fc24.x86_64.rpm marble-widget-15.08.3-50.fc24.src.rpm marble-widget.x86_64: W: no-documentation marble-widget-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib marble-widget-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- marble-widget (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtDeclarative.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtScript.so.4()(64bit) libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit) libQtWebKit.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libastro.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libphonon.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) marble-widget-data rtld(GNU_HASH) marble-widget-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmarblewidget.so.22()(64bit) marble-widget(x86-64) marble-widget-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- marble-widget: kdeedu-marble-libs libmarblewidget.so.22()(64bit) marble-libs marble-libs(x86-64) marble-part marble-part(x86-64) marble-widget marble-widget(x86-64) marble-widget-devel: marble-devel marble-widget-devel marble-widget-devel(x86-64) marble-widget-debuginfo: marble-widget-debuginfo marble-widget-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://download.kde.org/stable/applications/15.08.3/src/marble-15.08.3.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 743131cd37e6c42b178497fa3cda012b926587b4ebc094bb7276e02fb4e62844 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 743131cd37e6c42b178497fa3cda012b926587b4ebc094bb7276e02fb4e62844 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -x CheckOwnDirs -b 1294211 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/marble-widget/marble-widget.spec https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/marble-widget/marble-widget-15.08.3-51.fc23.src.rpm %changelog * Sun Jan 10 2016 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 1:15.08.3-51 - %%license LICENSE.txt - remove reference to unused marble-data subpkg - -devel: Conflicts: marble-widget-qt5-devel - update URL, simplify Source0 URL For remaining questions: - Do we expect upstream to accept still those patches for the qt4 branch? I have upstream commit access and strictly the older branches are not closed, but since there's going to be no new releases based on this branch, upstreaming anything isn't very helpful. - Maybe add a comment about the discontinued qt4 branch a .spec comment? Maybe for posterity, but our current maintainers are well aware of the situation. - Subpackage widget-data exists in both marble-widget.spec and marble.spec files. How to difference between both with different versions (15.08.3 vs. 15.12.0)? Do you really want to name it marble-widget-widget-data (mind twice widget) in case of marble-widget.spec? That can not work with Requires: %{name}-data . There's no %files widget-data in marble-widget.spec, so I guess it's just a copy-paste error somehow? This package does not produce any widget-data subpkg, but there was an extraneous %package widget-data reference which is now removed. - Why exclude astro as it has been activated in the old subpackage from marble.spec? Is that a plugin and now obsolete? Using system astro (from main marble package), see BuildRequires: marble-astro-devel - The mobile switch gets turned ON in marble-widget.spec but it was OFF in marble.spec? All apps are already disabled from building, no need to explicitly exlude it (again). We're only building libmarble
rdieter's scratch build of marble-widget-15.08.3-51.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12490588
Thanks for all the explanation. I do not see any blockers. APPROVED Still one advice: [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/kde4/apps/cmake, /usr/share/kde4/apps, /usr/share/kde4, /usr/share/kde4/apps/cmake/modules That should be fixed, you have only BuildRequires: kde-filesystem Please add also: Requires: kde-filesystem Please continue with our review swap, see bug #1293075.
kdelibs is pulled in via library deps, which already Requires: kde-filesystem itself
Hrm... I take that back, marble-widget appears to be Qt-only, I'll add the dep after import.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/marble-widget
Fixed in Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=710528 Thanks!