Spec URL: https://github.com/andreamtp/kronometer/blob/master/kronometer.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01364401-kronometer/kronometer-2.2.3-0.fc33.src.rpm Kronometer is a stopwatch application. Kronometer is free software and it's released under the GPLv2 license. Fedora Account System Username: andreamtp I was looking for a stopwatch for KDE and found kronometer was missing in Fedora, so I've packaged. I've already done some packaging for persona use, but this is my rpm for Fedora. COPR builds of the packages: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andreamtp/kronometer/
*** Bug 1117223 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please use a link to raw spec file to properly get it downloadable. E.g. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.spec > Release: 0%{?dist} Please start with value 1, also in %changelog.
Please follow the guidelines to get sponsored as a packager. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Updated according the comments above: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01366326-kronometer/kronometer-2.2.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Kronometer is a stopwatch application. Kronometer is free software and it's released under the GPLv2 license. Fedora Account System Username: andreamtp I was looking for a stopwatch for KDE and found kronometer was missing in Fedora, so I've packaged. I've already done some packaging for persona use, but this is my rpm for Fedora. COPR builds of the packages: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andreamtp/kronometer/
As I'm asked, I can't sponsor you because I'm not in the sponsors group. You need to look for another mentor with the relevant responsibilities.
At a first glance, the specfile looks reasonable to me. Just please also write your name in the changelog and not only the e-mail address. I have sponsored Andrea. Benvenuto! (Welcome!) Please read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers carefully and follow the process. I am fluent in Italian (it's the language of my citizenship after all), so if you have any questions you have to ask me, feel free to ask them in Italian if it is easier for you. (Though I guess that as a Red Hat employee, you are probably also used to communicating in English.) Raphael, can you complete the formal review? (You can approve the package now that the contributor is sponsored.)
Kevin, did you run fedora-review? Well, FAS name seems to be andreamtp as given in the COPR links. Generally, are you interested in review swap?
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #6) > At a first glance, the specfile looks reasonable to me. Just please also > write your name in the changelog and not only the e-mail address. Updated according the comments above: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01428211-kronometer/kronometer-2.2.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Kronometer is a stopwatch application. Kronometer is free software and it's released under the GPLv2 license. Fedora Account System Username: andreamtp I was looking for a stopwatch for KDE and found kronometer was missing in Fedora, so I've packaged. I've already done some packaging for persona use, but this is my rpm for Fedora. COPR builds of the packages: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andreamtp/kronometer/ > I have sponsored Andrea. Benvenuto! [...] Thank you very much for the sponsorship and for the welcome!
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > Kevin, did you run fedora-review? No, I didn't, I would have posted the output if I did. To get a first impression of the quality of a specfile, I tend to trust my eyes more than some tool. :-) But of course, if I am doing a complete formal review, I run fedora-review next, before giving the final approval. Raphael, are you going to run fedora-review, since you took the review?
E.g., what my pedantic eyes catch is the inconsistent alignment here: BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils BuildRequires: libappstream-glib BuildRequires: extra-cmake-modules BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5Core) >= 5.9.0 … (The first 2 BuildRequires have 1 space after the colon, all the others have 2 spaces.) That is not something I would fail a review for (because the users of the package won't even notice), but if I were the maintainer of the package, I would have the instant urge to fix this. :-)
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #10) > E.g., what my pedantic eyes catch is the inconsistent alignment here: > BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils > BuildRequires: libappstream-glib > BuildRequires: extra-cmake-modules Eheh, fair enough: fixed. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01428272-kronometer/kronometer-2.2.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
> Raphael, are you going to run fedora-review, since you took the review? >> Raphael, can you complete the formal review? (You can approve the package now that the contributor is sponsored.) Well, I thought you intent me to do so. Please feel free to approve.
> Well, I thought you intent me to do so. That was my intention, actually. I was just surprised that you have not posted fedora-review output yet.
TBH I fail to find the time to do the official review in near future, sorry.
I'll take the review then, I hope I'll get it done soon. If I take too long, please remind me. :-)
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
I am still interested in doing the review, if the submitter is still interested too. I hope to find time this weekend.
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #17) > I am still interested in doing the review, if the submitter is still > interested too. I hope to find time this weekend. Yes please, would be really appreciated. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.spec # dnf copr enable andreamtp/kronometer <or> SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedora-34-x86_64/02526429-kronometer/kronometer-2.2.3-2.fc34.src.rpm In COPR can be found repos and builds for F33, F34, F35 and Rawhide Looking for your feedback!
OK, I'll try to get this finally done this week.
fedora-review output: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kkofler/kronometer-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02542835-kronometer/fedora-review/review.txt I still need to go through the manually-checked items, but one thing fedora-review complains about is that you do not have a BuildRequires: gcc-c++ (but are instead implicitly relying on Qt/KDE -devel packages dragging it in transitively). I think adding an explicit BuildRequires: gcc-c++ would be a good idea.
Seeing how I have somehow managed to let this sit for a whole year again, I guess resetting the flags is the honest thing to do, and I am doing that hereby, sorry.
Andrea, I can see that you're in the packager group now, so I'm removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I can take this review. ================================================================================ What's the purpose of the bootstrap macro? It doesn't seem to do anything except set the tests macro. It seems like just having the tests macros would be sufficient. Even better, you can switch it to a modern bcond conditional. %bcond tests 1 --or-- %bcond_without tests https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/conditionalbuilds.html ================================================================================ The current macro logic does not run the tests. Run the tests if possible. You might also want to switch to the %ctest macro. While experimenting with this I can't seem to get testtimedisplay to pass, with or without the xvfb-run and dbus-launch commands. If you can sort that out please do, but otherwise it's ok to skip just that test. When skipping testtimedisplay, the xvfb-run and dbus-launch commands don't seem to be necessary. %if %{with tests} %ctest --verbose --exclude-regex testtimedisplay %endif https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites ================================================================================ As expected with the age of this review (not your fault), it will need to be updated to the current version, 2.3.0. Note that the license files are different in this version. Version: 2.3.0 %license LICENSES/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt LICENSES/CC0-1.0.txt ================================================================================ The license field needs to be updated to use SPDX identifiers for the license field. Looking at the 2.3.0 sources, I think it should be set to: # code is GPLv2, appdata file is CC0 License: GPL-2.0-or-later AND CC0-1.0 Your spec file mentions a GFDL license, but I don't see any reference to that in the 2.2.3 or 2.3.0 sources. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ ================================================================================ In the %check section, you have a `|| :` after your desktop-file-validate and appstream-util commands. Running those are mandatory, so ignoring non-zero exit statuses is incorrect. Please remove the `|| :` parts. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ ================================================================================ As mentioned in comment 20, you're missing a build requirement for a compiler. BuildRequires: gcc-c++ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ================================================================================ fedora-review is complaining about /usr/share/man/ca/man1/kronometer.1.gz being listed twice. I think this might be because it matches the wildcard in %files and is also part of the %{name}.lang list. Removing `%{_mandir}/*/man1/kronometer.1*` from %files fixes this. ================================================================================ fedora-review is also complaining about unowned directories created by the package - /usr/share/doc/HTML and subdirectories - /usr/share/icons/hicolor and subdirectories This can be resolve by requiring the packages that own those directories. Requires: kde-filesystem Requires: hicolor-icon-theme https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ ================================================================================
Hey Carl! Thanks for taking care of the review: almost forgot this was stalled xD I'm going to go through your comments, and provide new build to be testes.
Is there still interest in this review?
Clearing the needsinfo flag on myself, as this is waiting on Andrea to address the review feedback so far.
Hi, quick update: life took over me, but I'm back on it and plan in next weeks to rework rpm, with Carl suggestions, and have a new one to be reviewed before publishing.
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #23) > Andrea, I can see that you're in the packager group now, so I'm removing > FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I can take this review. Hi Carl, all comments has been addressed, you can find new spec here: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.spec and builds are available via: # dnf copr enable andreamtp/kronometer I only have some doubts about the test part: I've build the package via `fedpkg --release f38 mockbuild` but even removing the exclusion you mentioned in your comment, I have no error and I got "No tests were found": + /usr/bin/ctest --test-dir redhat-linux-build --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j8 --verbose Internal ctest changing into directory: /builddir/build/BUILD/kronometer-2.3.0/redhat-linux-build UpdateCTestConfiguration from :/builddir/build/BUILD/kronometer-2.3.0/redhat-linux-build/DartConfiguration.tcl UpdateCTestConfiguration from :/builddir/build/BUILD/kronometer-2.3.0/redhat-linux-build/DartConfiguration.tcl Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/kronometer-2.3.0/redhat-linux-build Constructing a list of tests Updating test list for fixtures Added 0 tests to meet fixture requirements Checking test dependency graph... Checking test dependency graph end No tests were found!!! Do you have any hint in this regard? thanks
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedora-38-x86_64/05800421-kronometer/kronometer-2.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
In your copr build log your cmake command is getting the flag -DBUILD_TESTING:BOOL=OFF. That is because your cmake command in %build is setting that ON/OFF based on the wrong macro. `%bcond tests 1` sets `%with_tests` to 1, not `%tests`. You can fix that like this: - -DBUILD_TESTING:BOOL=%{?tests:ON}%{!?tests:OFF} + -DBUILD_TESTING:BOOL=%{?with_tests:ON}%{!?with_tests:OFF} I also noticed that the license field still refers to GFDL. Which files are licensed under the GFDL?
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #30) > In your copr build log your cmake command is getting the flag > -DBUILD_TESTING:BOOL=OFF. That is because your cmake command in %build is > setting that ON/OFF based on the wrong macro. `%bcond tests 1` sets > `%with_tests` to 1, not `%tests`. You can fix that like this: Ah, thanks! I've addressed it > I also noticed that the license field still refers to GFDL. Which files are licensed under the GFDL? None, you're right. I've updated it. I've also understood the origin of the problem with the gui tests, and I've opened an upstream bug: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469342 In the meantime it's disabled. SPEC and SRPMS have been updated: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedora-38-x86_64/05872555-kronometer/kronometer-2.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5873509 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1830712-kronometer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05873509-kronometer/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The package is looking good, so I'm going to go ahead and approve it. I would recommend a couple of more slight tweaks, but they're not bad enough to block the package and you can take care of them later. ================================================================================ fedora-review points out that if "the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec". This used to be part of the packaging guidelines, but seems to have been accidentally dropped during the SPDX overhaul. It would still be good to have this. I suggest a simple comment above the license line. +# code is GPLv2, appdata file is CC0 License: GPL-2.0-or-later AND CC0-1.0 ================================================================================ From rpmlint: kronometer.x86_64: W: gzipped-svg-icon /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/kronometer.svgz Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped (.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG. It looks like upstream is using the svgz format. To clear the rpmlint warning you can probably just run gunzip on that file at the end of %install. ================================================================================ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 184320 bytes in 20 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]: 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 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kronometer
FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf
FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.