Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/winetricks.spec SRPM URL: <srpm info here> Description: Work around common problems in Wine Winetricks is an easy way to work around common problems in Wine. It has a menu of supported games/apps for which it can do all the workarounds automatically. It also lets you install missing DLLs or tweak various Wine settings individually. Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14425757
Not a review, just some comments: Should add some kind of additional dependencies at least on the following: - cabextract - gzip - unzip - wget or curl (well as long as rpm requires curl, this is kind of moot) - which IIRC from some experiments a long time also that the full wine was not required, wine-common and wine-wow were enough.
Fixed dependencies as proposed. Thanks! I tried to execute tests via make check but it fails, at least on x86_64.
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/winetricks.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/winetricks-20160425-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Work around common problems in Wine Winetricks is an easy way to work around common problems in Wine. It has a menu of supported games/apps for which it can do all the workarounds automatically. It also lets you install missing DLLs or tweak various Wine settings individually. Fedora Account System Username: raphgro
Note that AFAIU wget OR curl is needed, and so because rpm already pulls in curl, the wget dep is superfluous.
Hello. I tried to do an informal review (I am not packager yet) and everything looks correct. Only one warning from RPMLint: winetricks.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %winedep But this is not a big problem. Have a nice day. Lumir
IMHO better is to use %%winedep instead %winedep to prevent expanding this macro in the commented line.
Hello. Suggested improvements: - remove these dependencies: gzip unzip which - package latest version (20160627) Could you please describe to me this comment: #FIXME bug with dnf and x86 vs. x86_64 #BuildRequires: %winedep Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14709622 Output from fedora-review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gzip unzip which See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lbalhar/Review/1344115-winetricks/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: winetricks-20160425-1.fc24.noarch.rpm winetricks-20160425-1.fc24.src.rpm winetricks.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %winedep 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- winetricks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh cabextract gzip time unzip wget which wine-common wine-wow Provides -------- winetricks: application() application(winetricks.desktop) winetricks Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Winetricks/winetricks/archive/20160425.tar.gz#/winetricks-20160425.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0ddd2d896ab3803057f0eeec3afd6fd2f1b8ebb21e4ec0647c66e3cad0da1d0e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0ddd2d896ab3803057f0eeec3afd6fd2f1b8ebb21e4ec0647c66e3cad0da1d0e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1344115 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Lumír Balhar from comment #7) > - remove these dependencies: gzip unzip which The which dependency cannot be removed. winetricks requires it, and nothing in its dependency chain pulls it in. (gzip and unzip are being pulled in by others so they can be dropped if you like) The wget dependency should on the other hand still be removed, see comment 4. And I'm not sure where the time dependency comes from, can't find a place where it would be used. So I suppose that dep should go as well.
(In reply to Ville Skyttä from comment #8) > (In reply to Lumír Balhar from comment #7) > > > - remove these dependencies: gzip unzip which > > The which dependency cannot be removed. winetricks requires it, and nothing > in its dependency chain pulls it in. (gzip and unzip are being pulled in by > others so they can be dropped if you like) > > The wget dependency should on the other hand still be removed, see comment 4. > > And I'm not sure where the time dependency comes from, can't find a place > where it would be used. So I suppose that dep should go as well. Look at issue in review output: > All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gzip unzip which > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 I think 'which' is not needed in BR (like gzip and unzip).
(In reply to Lumír Balhar from comment #9) > I think 'which' is not needed in BR (like gzip and unzip). It is not a BR. It's a runtime dependency, i.e. a regular Requires.
(In reply to Ville Skyttä from comment #10) > (In reply to Lumír Balhar from comment #9) > > I think 'which' is not needed in BR (like gzip and unzip). > > It is not a BR. It's a runtime dependency, i.e. a regular Requires. Ok, then I think you should remove these lines and create separated dependencies for build and run. %global rundep cabextract gzip unzip wget which time Requires: %rundep BuildRequires: %rundep
Fixed. I do not see any blockers, can you approve? Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/winetricks.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/util/winetricks-20160627-1.fc24.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14822816
Can you change the Source0 URL to the following: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz That's a direct URL that things like spectool can actually use.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #13) > Can you change the Source0 URL to the following: > > %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > That's a direct URL that things like spectool can actually use. Does not work. $ wget 'https://github.com/Winetricks/winetricks/archive/winetricks-20160627.tar.gz' --2016-07-08 21:20:47-- https://github.com/Winetricks/winetricks/archive/winetricks-20160627.tar.gz Resolving github.com (github.com)... 192.30.253.112 Connecting to github.com (github.com)|192.30.253.112|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: https://codeload.github.com/Winetricks/winetricks/tar.gz/winetricks-20160627 [following] --2016-07-08 21:20:47-- https://codeload.github.com/Winetricks/winetricks/tar.gz/winetricks-20160627 Resolving codeload.github.com (codeload.github.com)... 192.30.253.121 Connecting to codeload.github.com (codeload.github.com)|192.30.253.121|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2016-07-08 21:20:48 ERROR 404: Not Found. $ spectool -g -R SPECS/winetricks.spec Getting https://github.com/Winetricks/winetricks/archive/20160627.tar.gz#/winetricks-20160627.tar.gz to /home/builder/rpmbuild/SOURCES/winetricks-20160627.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 131 0 131 0 0 197 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 197 100 168k 100 168k 0 0 102k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 562k
Lumír Balhar, can you continue with the review?
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #13) > Can you change the Source0 URL to the following: > > %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > That's a direct URL that things like spectool can actually use. Please forget about comment #14. $ spectool -g -R SPECS/winetricks.spec Getting https://github.com/Winetricks/winetricks/archive/20160627/winetricks-20160627.tar.gz to /home/builder/rpmbuild/SOURCES/winetricks-20160627.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 131 0 131 0 0 206 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 206 100 168k 100 168k 0 0 102k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 596k Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14823844
Looks good to me. Package APPROVED
Thanks for the review!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/winetricks
winetricks-20160709-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-92848170db
winetricks-20160709-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e29a3b0227
winetricks-20160709-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-428635d82f
winetricks-20160709-1.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-e29a3b0227
winetricks-20160709-1.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-2016-92848170db
winetricks-20160709-1.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-2016-428635d82f
winetricks-20160709-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
winetricks-20160709-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.