Description: ydotool provides some of the functionality of xdotool for wayland (it also works for X11). There are 2 dependency libraries. libuInputPlus: https://github.com/YukiWorkshop/libuInputPlus Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01243827-libuInputPlus/libuInputPlus.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01243827-libuInputPlus/libuInputPlus-0.1.3.20200211-1.fc31.wef.src.rpm libevdevPlus: https://github.com/YukiWorkshop/libevdevPlus Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01243826-libevdevPlus/libevdevPlus.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01243826-libevdevPlus/libevdevPlus-0.1.0.20200211-1.fc31.wef.src.rpm ydotool: https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01243414-ydotool/ydotool.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01243414-ydotool/ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200218git.9c3a4e7.fc31.wef.src.rpm
Hello. First please file this two dependencies in separate RHBZ ticket https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_a_note_on_dependencies
Please add your FAS [1] name into review. You can use this template: Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: Fedora Account System Username: --- [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/
New libuInputPlus RR: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276 New libevDevPlus RR: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808278 FAS Username: wef
Rebuild per review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276 SPEC UR: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01260168-ydotool/ydotool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01260168-ydotool/ydotool-0.1.9-0.20200229.git.9c3a4e7.fc31.src.rpm
Latest builds: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01314682-ydotool/ydotool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01314682-ydotool/ydotool-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc31.src.rpm
- rm this file in %install, %exclude is only used to sort the files between multiple packages: %exclude %{_libdir}/libydotool.a - do not gzip the man pages, the compression is handled by rpm - specify the mode install -p -m 0644 Daemon/%{name}.service %{buildroot}/%{_unitdir} - you need to add the systemd scriptlets, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros […] %post %systemd_post %{name}.service %preun %systemd_preun %{name}.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart %{name}.service - Be more specific: %{_libdir}/libydotool.so %{_unitdir}/%{name}.service - The library must be versioned. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning Downstream .so name versioning In cases where upstream ships unversioned .so library (so this is not needed for plugins, drivers, etc.), the packager MUST try to convince upstream to start versioning it. If that fails due to unwilling or unresponsive upstream, the packager may start versioning downstream but this must be done with caution and ideally only in rare cases. We don’t want to create a library that could conflict with upstream if they later start providing versioned shared libraries. Under no circumstances should the unversioned library be shipped in Fedora. - add a comment explaining why the patch is needed. - add a newline between your changelog entries - Fix the changelog entries: ydotool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.9-0.1.20200322git.9c3a4e7.fc31 ['0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33', '0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7'] Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in ydotool See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ydotool/review-ydotool/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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]: 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: ydotool-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debuginfo-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debugsource-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.src.rpm ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.9-0.1.20200322git.9c3a4e7.fc31 ['0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7.fc33', '0.1.9-0.20200317.git.9c3a4e7'] ydotool.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libydotool.so libydotool.so ydotool.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libydotool.so exit.5 ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ydotool.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ydotool.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 13: %{version}-orig ydotool-%{version} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 18 warnings.
Latest build: split off -devel package downstream versioning of shared library (as upstream has not responded to request to version it) fixes as above SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01323486-ydotool/ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200330.git.9c3a4e7.fc31.src.rpm SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01323486-ydotool/ydotool.spec
There's an issue here: %files %{_libdir}/libydotool.so.0* %{_unitdir}/%{name}.service %{_bindir}/%{name}* %doc README.md %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.* %{_mandir}/man8/%{name}d.8.* %post %systemd_post %{name}.service %preun %systemd_preun %{name}.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart %{name}.service %license LICENSE The %license directive is outside the %files list, it should be something like: %files %{_libdir}/libydotool.so.0* %{_unitdir}/%{name}.service %{_bindir}/%{name}* %license LICENSE %doc README.md %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.* %{_mandir}/man8/%{name}d.8.* %post %preun and %postun are generally placed after %install
Created attachment 1675094 [details] Spec file patch 1. Drop '%global __strip /bin/strip' This handled automatically during build. 2. Replace tabs in description where listing features with '-` char for example: Currently implemented command(s): type - Type a string key - Press keys mousemove - Move mouse pointer to absolute position mousemove_relative - Move mouse pointer to relative position mouseup - Generate mouse up event mousedown - Generate mouse down event click - Click on mouse buttons recorder - Record/replay input events -> Currently implemented command(s): - type - Type a string - key - Press keys - mousemove - Move mouse pointer to absolute position - mousemove_relative - Move mouse pointer to relative position - mouseup - Generate mouse up event - mousedown - Generate mouse down event - click - Click on mouse buttons - recorder - Record/replay input events 3. Add pushd/popd and & '%make_build -C %{_target_platform}' macros in %build stage. This is important and Cmake warn even during build: "this warning will become a fatal error in future CMake releases." 4. Use consistenly macroses in %files section: %{_includedir}/ydotool/ -> %{_includedir}/%{name}/ 5. Add .patch extension to your patch file. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd Add: %{?systemd_requires} to Requires. See attached patch.
Thanks Robert-André & Artem. Artem, I couldn't quite follow your point about 'pushd/popd' etc but I found that I could eliminate the warning message by adding '.' to the %cmake. I hope that satisfies. SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01324756-ydotool/ydotool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01324756-ydotool/ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200401.git.9c3a4e7.fc31.src.rpm
### Still recommended to do #3: 3. Add pushd/popd and & '%make_build -C %{_target_platform}' macros in %build stage. This is important and Cmake warn even during build: "this warning will become a fatal error in future CMake releases." Code block: ``` %prep %autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit} mkdir -p %{_target_platform} %build pushd %{_target_platform} %cmake .. popd %make_build -C %{_target_platform} %install %make_install -C %{_target_platform} ``` ### And remove %{_exec_prefix}/lib/systemd/ from %files section. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/systemd/system/ydotool.service See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ### Also add zero in current date. Use 'rpmdev-bumpspec' for changelogs: * Tue Apr 01 2020 Bob Hepple <bob.hepple> - 0.1.9-0.1.20200401git.9c3a4e7 W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.9-0.1.20200401git.9c3a4e7 ['0.1.9-0.1.20200401.git.9c3a4e7.fc33', '0.1.9-0.1.20200401.git.9c3a4e7'] ### And there was errors: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 exit.5 E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9
Thanks for the review, Artem! Not quite sure what to do about the shared-lib-calls-exit warning - contact upstream? It seems a bit trivial since the shared lib is only used in the ydotool program itself. I ran fedora-review again and it seems to be fairly happy. SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01327296-ydotool/ydotool.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01327296-ydotool/ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200403.git.9c3a4e7.fc31.src.rpm
Great, now no errors! The only thing which worries me is this ldconfig invoking in systemd scriplets. Maybe @eclipseo can help us there? > Not quite sure what to do about the shared-lib-calls-exit warning - contact upstream? This is highly recommended. Also i asked C++ guy even at day one about this tool and libs and he said that project is fine, just a little bit somewhat on "early stage". So it's useful to contact and discuss this with upstream. 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data- linux/tmp/review/1807753-ydotool/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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 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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in ydotool [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 ydotool- devel [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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: ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200403.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-devel-0.1.9-0.1.20200403.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debuginfo-0.1.9-0.1.20200403.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debugsource-0.1.9-0.1.20200403.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200403.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.src.rpm ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 exit.5 ydotool-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ydotool-debuginfo-0.1.9-0.1.20200403.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 exit.5 ydotool-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool/archive/9c3a4e7d66f44824abece72adb810f368d437525/ydotool-0.1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9db9c4e4047a78e22e965e11de7b9fd47302a8ae5c6247b3d31b9b23243316f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9db9c4e4047a78e22e965e11de7b9fd47302a8ae5c6247b3d31b9b23243316f9 Requires -------- ydotool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libboost_program_options.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libevdevPlus.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libuInputPlus.so.0()(64bit) libydotool.so.0.1.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd ydotool-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libydotool.so.0.1.9()(64bit) ydotool(x86-64) ydotool-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ydotool-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ydotool: libydotool.so.0.1.9()(64bit) ydotool ydotool(x86-64) ydotool-devel: ydotool-devel ydotool-devel(x86-64) ydotool-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ydotool-debuginfo ydotool-debuginfo(x86-64) ydotool-debugsource: ydotool-debugsource ydotool-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1807753 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
%{?systemd_requires} is not necessary anymore ldconfig is not needed either, as this is handled by %transfiletrigger
I raised the shared-lib-calls-exit issue with upstream: https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool/issues/62 SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01327698-ydotool/ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200405.git.9c3a4e7.fc31.src.rpm SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01327698-ydotool/ydotool.spec Is it normal for the review to take 39m or am I doing something wrong? 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: [ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bhepple/tmp/ydotool/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in ydotool [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ydotool- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200405.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-devel-0.1.9-0.1.20200405.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debuginfo-0.1.9-0.1.20200405.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debugsource-0.1.9-0.1.20200405.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200405.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.src.rpm ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 ydotool.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 exit.5 ydotool.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 ydotool.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 ydotool-devel.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 ydotool-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ydotool-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 ydotool-debugsource.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ydotool-debuginfo-0.1.9-0.1.20200405.git.9c3a4e7.fc33.x86_64.rpm ydotool-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xdotool -> toolbox ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dev -> deb, derv, div ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uinput -> input, u input, putting ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousemove -> mouse move, mouse-move, mousse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mouseup -> mouse up, mouse-up, mouse ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mousedown -> mouse down, mouse-down, moused own ydotool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemctl -> systemic ydotool.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 ydotool.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ydotool.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 exit.5 ydotool.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 ydotool.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 ydotool-debugsource.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 ydotool-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ydotool-debuginfo.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 ydotool-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ydotool-devel.x86_64: E: changelog-time-in-future 2020-04-05 ydotool-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ydotool-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 13 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool/archive/9c3a4e7d66f44824abece72adb810f368d437525/ydotool-0.1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9db9c4e4047a78e22e965e11de7b9fd47302a8ae5c6247b3d31b9b23243316f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9db9c4e4047a78e22e965e11de7b9fd47302a8ae5c6247b3d31b9b23243316f9 Requires -------- ydotool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libboost_program_options.so.1.69.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libevdevPlus.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libuInputPlus.so.0()(64bit) libydotool.so.0.1.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ydotool-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libydotool.so.0.1.9()(64bit) ydotool(x86-64) ydotool-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ydotool-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ydotool: libydotool.so.0.1.9()(64bit) ydotool ydotool(x86-64) ydotool-devel: ydotool-devel ydotool-devel(x86-64) ydotool-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ydotool-debuginfo ydotool-debuginfo(x86-64) ydotool-debugsource: ydotool-debugsource ydotool-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/bhepple/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ydotool-0.1.9-0.1.20200405.git.9c3a4e7.fc31.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, Python, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
This is really weird. Maybe regression of fedora-review itself which on Rawhide now. This should handled automatically: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libydotool.so.0.1.9 > Is it normal for the review to take 39m or am I doing something wrong? Unfortunately this tools very slow, but 39m is too much and even on my PC it done faster this package. Package approved.
Thanks Artem!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ydotool
FEDORA-2020-3c7a0db716 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3c7a0db716
FEDORA-2020-63261d7bce has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-63261d7bce
FEDORA-2020-3c7a0db716 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-3c7a0db716 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3c7a0db716 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-63261d7bce has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-63261d7bce \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-63261d7bce See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-3c7a0db716 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-63261d7bce has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.