Bug 1529352 - Review Request: wlroots - Pluggable, composable modules for building a Wayland compositor
Summary: Review Request: wlroots - Pluggable, composable modules for building a Waylan...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Elliott Sales de Andrade
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-12-27 18:40 UTC by Björn 'besser82' Esser
Modified: 2018-01-03 13:12 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: wlroots-0.0.1-0.6.20180102git767df15.fc28
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-01-03 13:12:39 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
quantum.analyst: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Björn 'besser82' Esser 2017-12-27 18:40:40 UTC
Description:

  Pluggable, composable modules for building a Wayland compositor.


Issues:

  fedora-review shows no obvious issues.


FAS-User:

  besser82


Urls:

  Spec URL:  https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/wlroots.spec
  SRPM URL:  https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/wlroots-0.0.1-0.1.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.src.rpm


Thanks for review in advance!

Comment 1 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2017-12-27 18:42:41 UTC
Scratch build:

  Rawhide:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23924347

Comment 3 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2017-12-27 21:02:04 UTC
>Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}%{?gitver}.tar.gz
With GitHub, you can use "%{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz".

>%{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}
>%{__cp} -pr README.md examples %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}
Macro forms of system executables should not be used.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros

Comment 4 Elliott Sales de Andrade 2017-12-31 08:32:47 UTC
Iwicki is correct about those two points.

Not sure why you added explicit install to %_pkgdocdir; you could just list the
relative paths in %doc directly. Is it to be able to delete .*ignore* and
meson.build from the installed version?

Need to add BuildRequires on gcc and/or g++:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B

A couple files are not MIT; they are not installed, but I think some
transformation of them is. Not exactly sure what the legal meaning of that is,
or if you need to mention that in the license field.

It would be nice if the description said a bit more than the summary.


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

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


Issues:
=======
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: wlroots-debugsource :
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: 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)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "NTP (legal
     disclaimer)", "Unknown or generated". 197 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/elliott/rpmbuild/review/1529352-wlroots/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.
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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 348160 bytes in 18 files.
[!]: 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]: 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:
[x]: 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 wlroots-
     debuginfo , wlroots-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: wlroots-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          wlroots-devel-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          wlroots-debuginfo-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          wlroots-debugsource-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          wlroots-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.fc28.src.rpm
wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged
wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able
wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged
wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able
wlroots-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
wlroots-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
wlroots.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged
wlroots.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able
wlroots.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged
wlroots.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: wlroots-debuginfo-0.0.1-0.2.20171227giteeb7cd8.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
wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged
wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able
wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pluggable -> Plug gable, Plug-gable, Plugged
wlroots.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able
wlroots-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
wlroots-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.



Requires
--------
wlroots (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libEGL.so.1()(64bit)
    libGLESv2.so.2()(64bit)
    libX11-xcb.so.1()(64bit)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcap.so.2()(64bit)
    libdrm.so.2()(64bit)
    libgbm.so.1()(64bit)
    libinput.so.10()(64bit)
    libinput.so.10(LIBINPUT_0.12.0)(64bit)
    libinput.so.10(LIBINPUT_0.21.0)(64bit)
    libinput.so.10(LIBINPUT_1.2)(64bit)
    libinput.so.10(LIBINPUT_1.3)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit)
    libsystemd.so.0()(64bit)
    libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit)
    libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_221)(64bit)
    libudev.so.1()(64bit)
    libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit)
    libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit)
    libwayland-egl.so.1()(64bit)
    libwayland-server.so.0()(64bit)
    libxcb-composite.so.0()(64bit)
    libxcb-icccm.so.4()(64bit)
    libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit)
    libxcb-xfixes.so.0()(64bit)
    libxcb.so.1()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

wlroots-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libinput-devel(x86-64)
    libwlroots.so.0()(64bit)
    libxcb-devel(x86-64)
    libxkbcommon-devel(x86-64)
    mesa-libEGL-devel(x86-64)
    pixman-devel(x86-64)
    systemd-devel(x86-64)
    wayland-devel(x86-64)
    wlroots(x86-64)
    xcb-util-wm-devel(x86-64)

wlroots-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

wlroots-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
wlroots:
    libwlroots.so.0()(64bit)
    wlroots
    wlroots(x86-64)

wlroots-devel:
    pkgconfig(wlroots)
    wlroots-devel
    wlroots-devel(x86-64)

wlroots-debugsource:
    wlroots-debugsource
    wlroots-debugsource(x86-64)

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



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/archive/eeb7cd8ed74d17b04623e453826c66023956eb12.tar.gz#/wlroots-0.0.1-20171227giteeb7cd8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a5a7b6ccb6fd6666809a1b32c867d05e8c1e7ad933bab3ef1260b1f4691712b7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5a7b6ccb6fd6666809a1b32c867d05e8c1e7ad933bab3ef1260b1f4691712b7


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1529352 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
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

Comment 5 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2017-12-31 12:01:43 UTC
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #4)
> Iwicki is correct about those two points.

Yes, of course…  But his suggestions are more a matter of taste, then 'hard-coded' rules.


> Not sure why you added explicit install to %_pkgdocdir; you could just list
> the
> relative paths in %doc directly. Is it to be able to delete .*ignore* and
> meson.build from the installed version?

I did that, so all built (sub-)packages share the same dir for documentation; if you simply add the relative paths using %%doc, every %package will get a seperate dir laying inside of %%{_defaultdocdir}.


> Need to add BuildRequires on gcc and/or g++:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B

Fixed.


> A couple files are not MIT; they are not installed, but I think some
> transformation of them is. Not exactly sure what the legal meaning of that
> is,
> or if you need to mention that in the license field.

I added some clarification comment to the spec file.


> It would be nice if the description said a bit more than the summary.

Well, at some day in the future, when upstream writes a better one…


> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> [!]: 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)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "NTP (legal
>      disclaimer)", "Unknown or generated". 197 files have unknown license.
>      Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/elliott/rpmbuild/review/1529352-wlroots/licensecheck.txt

See added clarification in the spec file.

***

=== Updated package ===


Scratch build:

  Rawhide:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23955196


Urls:

  Spec URL:  https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/wlroots.spec
  SRPM URL:  https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/wlroots-0.0.1-0.4.20171229git80ed4d4.fc28.src.rpm

Comment 6 Tristan Cacqueray 2018-01-01 04:44:18 UTC
Just a little nit: it seems like you could use "mkdir" and "cp" directly instead of the %{__ macros.
Otherwise it's LGTM!

Comment 7 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2018-01-02 11:27:30 UTC
I've made all reasonable changes to package and gave some clarification to other things in question.  Could you please approve the package and set the review flag to '+', bug status to 'POST'?

Comment 8 Elliott Sales de Andrade 2018-01-02 21:16:22 UTC
APPROVED.

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-01-03 12:47:02 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wlroots


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