Bug 1508002 - Review Request: utox - The lightweight Tox client
Summary: Review Request: utox - The lightweight Tox client
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Sandro Mani
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1507985 1507986
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-10-31 16:32 UTC by Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
Modified: 2017-12-19 19:44 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-12-19 19:44:52 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
manisandro: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-10-31 16:32:16 UTC
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/7bfe675/uTox.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/tox/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00656451-uTox/uTox-0.16.1-2.fc28.src.rpm

Description: The lightweight Tox client.

Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo

Comment 1 Sandro Mani 2017-11-01 22:43:46 UTC
I'm not sure whether address sanitizer ought to be enabled in a release build, since it is basically a memory error debugging aid. I'd go with ENABLE_ASAN=OFF and remove libasan from the BRs.

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-11-02 15:04:53 UTC
 - Done
 - I've elected to rename the package from uTox to utox


Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/82987b1/utox.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/tox/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00657051-utox/utox-0.16.1-2.fc28.src.rpm

Comment 3 Sandro Mani 2017-11-02 19:13:33 UTC
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
     343 files have unknown license.

=> The license should be MIT according to uTox-0.16.1/LICENSE


[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/14x14,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/14x14/apps
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/14x14/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/14x14

=> hicolor icon theme does not provide the 14x14 directory, unless it is really necessary I suppose you can also just delete that particular icon size.

Rest is good.

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-11-03 14:20:17 UTC
 - License is GPLv3+ or MIT according to the LICENSE file.
 - Removed hicolor/14x14

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/29c2a3b/utox.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/tox/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00657600-utox/utox-0.16.1-2.fc28.src.rpm

Comment 5 Sandro Mani 2017-11-05 15:53:07 UTC
All good, approved!

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

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


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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
     343 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/sandro/Desktop/review/1508002-utox/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.
[ -: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
     Note: icons in utox
[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 81920 bytes in 2 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 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in utox-
     debuginfo , utox-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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.
[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: 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: utox-0.16.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          utox-debuginfo-0.16.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          utox-debugsource-0.16.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          utox-0.16.1-2.fc28.src.rpm
utox.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
utox-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
utox.src:6: W: non-break-space line 6, char 15
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: utox-debuginfo-0.16.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
utox-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/uTox/uTox/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
utox-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
utox-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/uTox/uTox/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
utox.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/uTox/uTox/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
utox.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



Requires
--------
utox-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

utox-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

utox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXext.so.6()(64bit)
    libXrender.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
    libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libfilteraudio.so.0()(64bit)
    libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
    libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libopenal.so.1()(64bit)
    libopus.so.0()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libresolv.so.2()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    libsodium.so.23()(64bit)
    libtoxav.so.1()(64bit)
    libtoxcore.so.1()(64bit)
    libtoxencryptsave.so.1()(64bit)
    libv4lconvert.so.0()(64bit)
    libvpx.so.4()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
utox-debugsource:
    utox-debugsource
    utox-debugsource(x86-64)

utox-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    utox-debuginfo
    utox-debuginfo(x86-64)

utox:
    application()
    application(utox.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(utox.appdata.xml)
    mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/tox)
    utox
    utox(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/uTox/uTox//archive/v0.16.1/utox-0.16.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d8fcee0dbf25596e67c4323fc153069552eeeb4d99cdcdc09ca2074ebc38b493
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d8fcee0dbf25596e67c4323fc153069552eeeb4d99cdcdc09ca2074ebc38b493


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1508002 -L /home/sandro/Desktop/review/repo
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

Built with local dependencies:
    /home/sandro/Desktop/review/repo/toxcore-0.1.10-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
    /home/sandro/Desktop/review/repo/toxcore-devel-0.1.10-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
    /home/sandro/Desktop/review/repo/libfilteraudio-0.0.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
    /home/sandro/Desktop/review/repo/libfilteraudio-devel-0.0.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-11-06 14:39:35 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/utox

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-11-07 12:45:53 UTC
utox-0.16.1-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b79e2e6250

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2017-11-07 19:15:17 UTC
utox-0.16.1-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-b79e2e6250

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2017-12-19 19:44:52 UTC
utox-0.16.1-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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