Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/22aeec2/qevercloud.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/quentier/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00708588-qevercloud/qevercloud-4.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: This library presents the complete Evernote SDK for Qt. All the functionality that is described on Evernote site is implemented and ready to use. In particular OAuth authentication is implemented. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
There seem to be some unit tests that aren't run. The README says: > Also, if Qt4's QtTest or Qt5's Qt5Test modules are found during the pre-build configuration, the unit tests are enabled and can be run with `make test` command. It looks as though the test binary "test_QEverCloud" is indeed getting built according to the log file. Is it possible to run these in %check? In addition, rpmlint says: qevercloud.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 qevercloud.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 This was recently discussed on the devel list. The takeaway from the change proposal page seems to be that this is fine if you only want to support Fedora 28+, but if you want to backport this to older releases, make sure to add the ldconfig post scriplets (or use the new macros): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets#Upgrade.2Fcompatibility_impact Otherwise, the package looks fine. Since neither of the above issues are blockers, I'm going to go ahead and approve it.
Sorry... I missed two additional things with the qevercloud-doc package. I guess I should be more careful doing package reviews when I'm sick. :) > %package doc > Summary: Documentation for %{altname} You're missing a 'BuildArch: noarch' for the doc package. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/qt5 I didn't notice this last night, but this is being reported by fedora-review because the -doc subpackage doesn't actually depend on the main one. So, it's technically possible to install qevercloud-doc without qt5-qtbase installed. So, either qevercloud-doc needs to co-own /usr/share/doc/qt5 or it should just depend on qt5-qtbase. Since there are now several things to cleanup, and the directory ownership thing is technically a blocker, I'll temporarily un-approve this. Please fix these issues and I'll re-approve. Here is the full output of fedora-review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues ====== - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in qevercloud See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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)", "Unknown or generated". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1542650-qevercloud/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/qt5 [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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qevercloud-doc , qevercloud-debuginfo , qevercloud-debugsource [x]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 11069440 bytes in /usr/share qevercloud-doc-4.0.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm:11048960 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: qevercloud-4.0.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm qevercloud-devel-4.0.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm qevercloud-doc-4.0.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm qevercloud-debuginfo-4.0.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm qevercloud-debugsource-4.0.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm qevercloud-4.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm qevercloud.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 qevercloud.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 qevercloud-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib qevercloud-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation qevercloud-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qevercloud-debuginfo-4.0.0-1.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 qevercloud.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/d1vanov/QEverCloud <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> qevercloud.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 qevercloud.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5 qevercloud.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libQt5WebChannel.so.5 qevercloud.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libQt5Positioning.so.5 qevercloud.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libQt5Quick.so.5 qevercloud.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libQt5Qml.so.5 qevercloud.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libQt5PrintSupport.so.5 qevercloud.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 qevercloud.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 qevercloud.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libqt5qevercloud.so.4.0.0 qevercloud-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/d1vanov/QEverCloud <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> qevercloud-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation qevercloud-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/d1vanov/QEverCloud <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> qevercloud-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib qevercloud-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation qevercloud-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/d1vanov/QEverCloud <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> qevercloud-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/d1vanov/QEverCloud <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings. Requires -------- qevercloud (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.10)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Positioning.so.5()(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebChannel.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebEngineWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebEngineWidgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qevercloud-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qevercloud-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libqt5qevercloud.so.4()(64bit) qevercloud(x86-64) qevercloud-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qevercloud-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- qevercloud: libqt5qevercloud.so.4()(64bit) qevercloud qevercloud(x86-64) qevercloud-debugsource: qevercloud-debugsource qevercloud-debugsource(x86-64) qevercloud-devel: cmake(QEverCloud-qt5) qevercloud-devel qevercloud-devel(x86-64) qevercloud-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qevercloud-debuginfo qevercloud-debuginfo(x86-64) qevercloud-doc: qevercloud-doc qevercloud-doc(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/d1vanov/QEverCloud/archive/v4.0.0/qevercloud-4.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2793591444cd23e17aec40983158048d4a527a67e7c90dda4e67c86ac678825b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2793591444cd23e17aec40983158048d4a527a67e7c90dda4e67c86ac678825b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1542650 -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
> It looks as though the test binary "test_QEverCloud" is indeed getting built according to the log file. Is it possible to run these in %check? Good catch. I added the test and it is successful. > This was recently discussed on the devel list. The takeaway from the change proposal page seems to be that this is fine if you only want to support Fedora 28+, but if you want to backport this to older releases, make sure to add the ldconfig post scriplets (or use the new macros): I added %ldconfig_scriptlets as I intend to support F27. > You're missing a 'BuildArch: noarch' for the doc package. Yes, thank you. > it should just depend on qt5-qtbase. -doc now depends on qt5-qtbase. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/9a4c14d/qevercloud.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/quentier/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00713062-qevercloud/qevercloud-4.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm SPEC diff: https://github.com/eclipseo/packaging/commit/9a4c14d6fc5a25421f7676e895481ef2331cbfa8#diff-a88471a36243d712706fbf604f44a45f
Great, package is approved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qevercloud. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.
qevercloud-4.0.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cb548cbe27
qevercloud-4.0.0-1.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-2018-cb548cbe27
qevercloud-4.0.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.