Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/hid-replay.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: hid-replay is a tool that allow users to capture hidraw description and events in order to replay them through the uhid kernel module. Fedora Account System Username: bentiss Hi! I am using hid-replay/hid-recording for a while when debugging HID devices. I think it is time Fedora ships the tool directly so I do not have to point users to a copr each time I request logs from them.
BuildRoot: is obsolete now defattr can be skipped, it just sets defaults anyway (there was a recent thread on fedora-devel) you need to add %license COPYING https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [these three also apply to the libratbag review] tbh, I find %{bindir}/%{name} more confusing than just spelling it out, especially given that you have a second binary anyway. same with the man page also, do me a favour for this one and the libratbag bug: run fedora-review -b <bugnumber> and fix up whatever else it complains about :)
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/hid-replay-rpm-v2/hid-replay.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/hid-replay-rpm-v2/hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc23.src.rpm (In reply to Peter Hutterer from comment #1) > BuildRoot: is obsolete now removed > defattr can be skipped, it just sets defaults anyway (there was a recent > thread on fedora-devel) removed > you need to add %license COPYING done (and added the files to the final RPM) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > [these three also apply to the libratbag review] > > tbh, I find %{bindir}/%{name} more confusing than just spelling it out, > especially given that you have a second binary anyway. same with the man page OK, changed. > > also, do me a favour for this one and the libratbag bug: run fedora-review > -b <bugnumber> and fix up whatever else it complains about :) Running the f23 fedora-review takes too long due to some annoying bugs fixed in the devel version. Running the devel branch (https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/UseDevelopmentVersion) makes things take like 10 min, which is acceptable. I have the following which I think are OK: in SHOULD: [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hid- replay-debuginfo -> there is nothing in the specfile concerning the debuginfo, so these are default ones. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. -> the patch I currently have in the specfile allows to compile on RHEL 6 without uhid. It's not upstream and won't be I think. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. -> no check upstream. I know, I might have to write some... [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. -> ???? (not sure it applies to me) Rpmlint: Checking: hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm hid-replay-debuginfo-0.7.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc24.src.rpm hid-replay.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hidraw -> hi draw, hi-draw, hid raw hid-replay.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uhid -> hid, u hid, uh id hid-replay.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hidraw -> hi draw, hi-draw, hid raw hid-replay.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uhid -> hid, u hid, uh id 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Well, uhid and hidraw are kernel modules, so it should not complain about those! Provides: Should I also provide hid-recorder? I also compressed the changelog into only one "Initial package".
COPYING is still marked as %doc, should be %license... oh wait, nevermind. just found it in the %description. Just replace the %doc COPYING with %license COPYING and that's it. I noticed that COPYING is GPLv2 but the source files are v2 or later? (and the ccan bits are public domain or MIT) All the rest looks good now, if you can fix those two up the package is ready
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/hid-replay-rpm-v3/hid-replay.spec SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/hid-replay-rpm-v3/hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc23.src.rpm (In reply to Peter Hutterer from comment #3) > COPYING is still marked as %doc, should be %license... oh wait, nevermind. > just found it in the %description. Just replace the %doc COPYING with > %license COPYING and that's it. OK, removed the extra %license and updated the correct field in %files (sorry for my misunderstanding). > > I noticed that COPYING is GPLv2 but the source files are v2 or later? (and This should be fine. The GPLv2 text mentions the case when the sources declare the "or later" mention. > the ccan bits are public domain or MIT) Good catch. Updated the .spec to reflect that. > > All the rest looks good now, if you can fix those two up the package is ready Thanks!
bentiss's scratch build of hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23-candidate completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13091458
Note for the archives, the spec from comment 4 was silently amended on request to list GPLv2+ as license only since the license field applies to the binary, the source licenses don't matter here. Review below is for the updated spec file. also forgot to answer to this: (In reply to Benjamin Tissoires from comment #2) > Provides: > Should I also provide hid-recorder? No, Provides is only necessary when you are providing contents from another package and you have a potential conflict.
Package is APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/whot/tmp/2016-02-23-Tue/1309691-hid-replay/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hid- replay-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm hid-replay-debuginfo-0.7.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc21.src.rpm hid-replay.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hidraw -> hi draw, hi-draw, hid raw hid-replay.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uhid -> hid, u hid, uh id hid-replay.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hidraw -> hi draw, hi-draw, hid raw hid-replay.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uhid -> hid, u hid, uh id 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hid-replay-debuginfo-0.7.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- hid-replay.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hidraw -> hi draw, hi-draw, hid raw hid-replay.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uhid -> hid, u hid, uh id 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/hid-replay
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-88e497bfbf
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-62bb8b4ac2
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ed0a795fef
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0d11a72254
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.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-ed0a795fef
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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-EPEL-2016-88e497bfbf
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2016-62bb8b4ac2
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.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-2016-0d11a72254
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
hid-replay-0.7.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.