Bug 1495968 - Review Request: webvfx - Video effects engine based on web technologies
Summary: Review Request: webvfx - Video effects engine based on web technologies
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-09-26 13:30 UTC by MartinKG
Modified: 2017-09-28 09:44 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-09-28 09:44:55 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
eclipseo: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description MartinKG 2017-09-26 13:30:56 UTC
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/webvfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/webvfx-0.4.5-1.fc26.src.rpm

Description: WebVfx is a video effects library that allows effects to be implemented using
WebKit HTML or Qt QML.
Fedora Account System Username: martinkg

rpmlint output:
rpmlint -i -v webvfx.spec /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/webvfx-0.4.5-1.fc26.src.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/webvfx-0.4.5-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/webvfx-devel-0.4.5-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/webvfx-debuginfo-0.4.5-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
webvfx.spec: I: checking
webvfx.spec:43: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libwebvfx.so*
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

webvfx.spec: I: checking-url https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx/archive/master.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
webvfx.src: I: checking
webvfx.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx/releases (timeout 10 seconds)
webvfx.src:43: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libwebvfx.so*
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

webvfx.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx/archive/master.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
webvfx.x86_64: I: checking
webvfx.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx/releases (timeout 10 seconds)
webvfx.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libwebvfx.so.1.0.0 _exit.5
This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork()
context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library
function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the
error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any
state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an
actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the
situation.

webvfx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary webvfx_browser
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

webvfx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary webvfx_render
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

webvfx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary webvfx_viewer
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

webvfx-devel.x86_64: I: checking
webvfx-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx/releases (timeout 10 seconds)
webvfx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

webvfx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

webvfx-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
webvfx-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx/releases (timeout 10 seconds)
webvfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-master/build/release/.moc
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

webvfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-master/build/release/.moc
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

webvfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-master/build/release/.rcc
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

webvfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-master/build/release/.rcc
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

webvfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-master/build/release/.ui
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

webvfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-master/build/release/.ui
The file or directory is hidden. You should see if this is normal, and delete
it from the package if not.

4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings.

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-09-27 08:29:27 UTC
Hello,

 - That's not gonna fly:

Source0:   https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx/archive/master.tar.gz

   Either ask upstream to make a new release or package a development snapshot:


%global commit          e918ce4667e623c3d60735cb898223e730c6d7af
%global shortcommit     %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global commitdate      20160823

   Then make a snapshot, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots

Version:        0.4.5
Release:        0.1.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

   And:

Source0:        https://github.com/mltframework/webvfx/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz


%prep
%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{commit}


 - Group is not used in Fedora. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

Comment 2 MartinKG 2017-09-27 09:28:41 UTC
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/webvfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc26.src.rpm

%changelog
* Wed Sep 27 2017 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4
- Use development snapshot
- Remove Group tag
- Add doc subpkg
- Add BR doxygen

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-09-27 11:46:37 UTC
You also must include the license in the doc subpackage:

%files doc
%license LICENSE

Package accepted.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.

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: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated".
     112 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/webvfx/review-webvfx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in webvfx-
     devel , webvfx-doc , webvfx-debuginfo , webvfx-debugsource
[?]: 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.
[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]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          webvfx-devel-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          webvfx-doc-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.noarch.rpm
          webvfx-debuginfo-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          webvfx-debugsource-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.src.rpm
webvfx.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libwebvfx.so.1.0.0 _exit.5
webvfx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary webvfx_browser
webvfx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary webvfx_render
webvfx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary webvfx_viewer
webvfx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
webvfx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
webvfx-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
webvfx-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
webvfx-debugsource.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64/build/release/.moc
webvfx-debugsource.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64/build/release/.moc
webvfx-debugsource.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64/build/release/.rcc
webvfx-debugsource.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64/build/release/.rcc
webvfx-debugsource.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64/build/release/.ui
webvfx-debugsource.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/webvfx-0.4.5-0.2.20160823gite918ce4.fc28.x86_64/build/release/.ui
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.

Comment 4 MartinKG 2017-09-27 11:55:07 UTC
Thanks for reviewing the package, i will add the missing license file.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-09-27 14:35:26 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/webvfx

Comment 6 MartinKG 2017-09-28 09:44:55 UTC
package has been built successfully on f25, f26, f27 and rawhide.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.