Spec URL: https://github.com/gicmo/spec/blob/master/gamemode/gamemode.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gicmo/nursery/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00772034-gamemode/gamemode-1.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Copr URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gicmo/nursery Fedora Account System Username: gicmo Description: GameMode is a daemon/lib combo for GNU/Linux that allows games to request a set of optimisations be temporarily applied to the host OS. GameMode was designed primarily as a stop-gap solution to problems with the Intel and AMD CPU powersave or ondemand governors, but is now able to launch custom user defined plugins, and is intended to be expanded further, as there are a wealth of automation tasks one might want to apply. I did a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27918810 After manually enabling the user unit file, I tested that it is working as expected: Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Adding game: 6209 [/usr/bin/sleep] Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Entering Game Mode... Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Requesting update of governor policy to performance Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt pkexec[6210]: pam_systemd(polkit-1:session): Cannot create session: Already running in a session Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt pkexec[6210]: pam_unix(polkit-1:session): session opened for user root by (uid=1000) Jun 28 17:03:17 cobalt gamemoded[5802]: Setting governors to performance Jun 28 17:04:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Removing game: 6209 [/usr/bin/sleep] Jun 28 17:04:18 cobalt gamemoded[5802]: Setting governors to powersave Jun 28 17:04:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Leaving Game Mode... Jun 28 17:04:17 cobalt /usr/bin/gamemoded[5802]: Requesting update of governor policy to powersave I think there are a couple of issues with the package, I think they should be fixed upstream, which I would like to get feedback here too: * Issues - location of the gamemoded daemon (currently /usr/bin) Why is it not in /usr/libexec/ (or better /usr/libexec/gamemode) - location of the libraries (currently /usr/lib) They are unversioned, but maybe that is ok, because they are internal, i.e. get dlopen'ed by the inlined functions from the inlined functions in the header. - system user vs system unit What is the reason that this is a user unit file, not a system one? Currently needs manual enablement and starting. - man page section for gamemoded (1 vs 8) It is a daemon, so should be in secton 8?
Ok, nevermind about the user unit file/system unit file and the manual enabling; I got confused about system daemon and user systemd scriptlets. Anyway, I made a patch to have the service be dbus-activatable (filled upstream[1]) and removed the wrong dbus scriptlets. Updated spec file and patch: https://github.com/gicmo/spec/tree/master/gamemode New build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gicmo/nursery/build/772093/ [1] https://github.com/FeralInteractive/gamemode/pull/62
- You got the wrong Systemd scriptlets, for *user* units it should be: %post %systemd_user_post %{name}.service %preun %systemd_user_preun %{name}.service See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Systemd at the User units section. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in gamemode See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#User_units ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gamemode/review-gamemode/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/share/polkit-1/actions [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: gamemode-1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm gamemode-devel-1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm gamemode-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm gamemode-debugsource-1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm gamemode-1.1-1.fc29.src.rpm gamemode.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Optimise -> Optimist, Optimism, Optimize gamemode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimisations -> optimizations, optimization, improvisations gamemode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powersave -> power save, power-save, powers ave gamemode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ondemand -> on demand, on-demand, demand gamemode.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libgamemode.so libgamemode.so gamemode.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libgamemodeauto.so libgamemodeauto.so gamemode-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gamemode.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Optimise -> Optimist, Optimism, Optimize gamemode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimisations -> optimizations, optimization, improvisations gamemode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powersave -> power save, power-save, powers ave gamemode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ondemand -> on demand, on-demand, demand 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > - You got the wrong Systemd scriptlets, for *user* units it should be: Yeah, indeed, I realized it, see my comment #1 but I forgot push the commit that removes the systemd scriptlets. Sorry about that. I think the patch that makes the daemon dbus-activatable renders them unneeded since we don't enable the service anymore directly (or do I have that wrong)? I am currently creating a patch to have proper library versioning, which I plan to submit upstream.
I created a pull-request upstream for the library versioning, let's see what happens. In the spec file I included "%ldconfig_scriptlets" and updated the git repo with the current version. What about the US vs UK spelling, do I need to fix that?
Good news, upstream took all the patches! The patch to move the manpage is now also included and I also changed the spelling. New build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gicmo/nursery/build/773941/ Updated spec file: https://github.com/gicmo/spec/blob/master/gamemode/gamemode.spec
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gamemode
gamemode-1.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-dab8a21270
gamemode-1.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-dab8a21270
gamemode-1.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.