Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01378706-studio-controls/studio-controls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01378706-studio-controls/studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Studio Controls is a small application that enables/disables realtime privilege for users and controls jackdbus. It allows Jackdbus to be run from session start. It also will detect USB audio devices getting plugged in after session start and optionally connect them to jackdbus as a client or switch them in as jackdbus master. Fedora Account System Username: eeickmeyer
Hi! I hope I haven't missed anything! Thanks for your work :)! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - systemd_post is not invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in studio-controls See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets - systemd_user_post is not invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in studio-controls See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units - systemd services MUST NOT be started nor enabled after installation. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Systemd/#_why_dont_we Look at presets for a default activation on installation: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/DefaultServices/ - Use systemd macros (%{_unitdir} and %{_userunitdir}) and add systemd-rpm-macros as a Build Requirement. - Some missing requirements: A lot of commands used in the code are missing. I found (for now): dbus-tools, psmisc, polkit, pulseaudio-utils and jack-audio-connection-kit-example-clients. This might not be exhaustive! - Preserve timestamps using the "install" command or add the --preserve=mode,timestamps flag to "cp". - Unowned directories. You should require polkit and own the systemd directories IMO. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ - Please adjust the description so it doesn't exceed 80 characters per line. - In the changelog, Tue May 07 2020 should be Thu May 07 2020 :P. ===== MUST items ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/lyes/Documents/reviews/1836542-studio- controls/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: It doesn't require polkit. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/systemd/user/indicator- messages.service.wants [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/user/indicator-messages.service.wants, /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/lib/systemd/user/default.target.wants, /usr/share/polkit-1/actions See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Note: There's a wrong date :P. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Use %{_unitdir} and %{_userunitdir}. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: "BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros" is missing. Note: A lot of other commands used in the code are missing as well. I found until now: dbus-tools, psmisc, polkit, pulseaudio-utils, jack-audio-connection-kit-example-clients... This is not exhaustive! [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: %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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.src.rpm studio-controls.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackdbus -> jackdaws studio-controls.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C privilege for users and controls jackdbus. It allows Jackdbus to be run from session start. It also will detect USB audio devices getting plugged in after session start and optionally connect them to jackdbus as a client or switch them in as jackdbus master. studio-controls.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackdbus -> jackdaws studio-controls.src: E: description-line-too-long C privilege for users and controls jackdbus. It allows Jackdbus to be run from session start. It also will detect USB audio devices getting plugged in after session start and optionally connect them to jackdbus as a client or switch them in as jackdbus master. studio-controls.src:43: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib studio-controls.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue May 07 2020 Erich Eickmeyer <erich> - 1.99.0-1 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- studio-controls.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackdbus -> jackdaws studio-controls.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C privilege for users and controls jackdbus. It allows Jackdbus to be run from session start. It also will detect USB audio devices getting plugged in after session start and optionally connect them to jackdbus as a client or switch them in as jackdbus master. studio-controls.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-controls <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
> - Some missing requirements: A lot of commands used in the code are > missing. I found (for now): dbus-tools, psmisc, polkit, > pulseaudio-utils and jack-audio-connection-kit-example-clients. This > might not be exhaustive! Added all of those except jack-audio-connection-kit-example-clients as it was already there. :) Other than that, I think I got everything, but I'm human and therefore fallible, and probably missed at least something. New files as follows: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01403894-studio-controls/studio-controls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01403894-studio-controls/studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Thank you for your quick answer! > Added all of those except jack-audio-connection-kit-example-clients as it was already there. :) Ah, yes, my bad! I don't remember why I added it :P. > Other than that, I think I got everything, but I'm human and therefore fallible, and probably missed at least something. Oh, it's totally fine, this software is pretty hard to package and you did a great job :). You just forgot to add systemd user scriptlets aswell (I should have been clearer, sorry): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units > %post > %systemd_user_post %{name}.service > > %preun > %systemd_user_preun %{name}.service Except that, everything is fine and I should be able to approve the package ;)!
Made the fixes, except it can't be %{name}.service since the name of the file is studio.service, so I had to specify the actual name. New files: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01404426-studio-controls/studio-controls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01404426-studio-controls/studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
> Made the fixes, except it can't be %{name}.service since the name of the file is studio.service, so I had to specify the actual name. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but this should be applied to all unit files, I was just writing the Guidelines' example :P. What those macros do is: 1- Checking that no preset activate/deactivate those unit files by default. 2- When uninstalling them, being sure that all of them are disabled (so systemd does not have "ghost" unit files which are enabled but unavailable). Btw, if you would want to know what rpm macros does, there's the `rpm --eval` command ;).
Excellent. Well, everything was fixed in the above links (Comment 4).
Shouldn't scriptlets for session-monitor.service be added?
> Shouldn't scriptlets for session-monitor.service be added? I made that an exclude since that requires an Xfce applet, was an Ubuntu-only thing, and is not really required for functionality. It was only required for Xfce, but we're working on a better way of telling the user service when to stop (which is all it was doing). We really want this to be DE-agnostic, and the indicator-messages isn't actually required outside of Ubuntu.
Ah, I understand now :P! I was intrigued by that weird unit file! But I think you forgot an exclude macro for: %{_userunitdir}/session-monitor.service then!
Ah, yes, you are absolutely right. :) Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01404480-studio-controls/studio-controls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01404480-studio-controls/studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
Good :P! I am now doing the final review, it will take some time though! Thank you, again, for your amazing work :)!
Hello again :P. You also forgot to own /usr/lib/systemd/user/default.target.wants This should work: > %dir %{_userunitdir}/default.target.wants/
Oops, fixed (like, an hour ago but forgot to rebuild): Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01404704-studio-controls/studio-controls.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01404704-studio-controls/studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Ok! Package Approved :D! Thank you for your reactivity and your great work :)! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/lyes/Documents/reviews/1836542-studio- controls/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/systemd/user/default.target.wants(unity-gtk-module-common) [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 [-]: 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]: 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 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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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 studio-controls [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm studio-controls-1.99.1-1.fc33.src.rpm studio-controls.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackdbus -> jackdaws studio-controls.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackdbus -> jackdaws studio-controls.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. studio-controls.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jackdbus -> jackdaws studio-controls.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-controls <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Thanks so much!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/studio-controls
FEDORA-2020-57cc51bbd2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-57cc51bbd2
FEDORA-2020-35f8ea00ac has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-35f8ea00ac
FEDORA-2020-57cc51bbd2 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-2020-57cc51bbd2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-57cc51bbd2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-35f8ea00ac 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-2020-35f8ea00ac \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-35f8ea00ac See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-35f8ea00ac has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-57cc51bbd2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.