Bug 1869107 - Review Request: purple-mm-sms - A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving SMS via ModemManager
Summary: Review Request: purple-mm-sms - A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1922166
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: mobility
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-08-16 22:37 UTC by Nikhil Jha
Modified: 2021-02-08 16:43 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-02-08 16:43:18 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nikhil Jha 2020-08-16 22:37:05 UTC
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/purple-mm-sms/-/raw/master/purple-mm-sms.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01613126-purple-mm-sms/purple-mm-sms-0.1.7-1.fc34.src.rpm
Description: A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving SMS via ModemManager
Fedora Account System Username: njha

---

One of the packages for Fedora on PinePhone/Librem5/etc.
COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1613126/

Comment 1 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2020-08-17 11:50:10 UTC
> %global debug_package %{nil}
This is typically a red flag. We *want* debuginfo in Fedora and omitting it is rather uncommon.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/#_missing_debuginfo_packages

>%build
>make %{?_smp_mflags}
1. Add "%set_build_flags" before the make call. This will set up CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS appropriately. Among others, it should enable debuginfo generation, fixing the issue above.
2. Replace "make %{?_smp_mflags}" with "%make_build".

>Summary:        A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving SMS via Modemmanager
The ModemManager package in Fedora writes the name like that - "ModemManager", with a capital M for "manager". Please do the same.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ModemManager/blob/master/f/ModemManager.spec

Comment 2 Nikhil Jha 2020-08-20 23:36:54 UTC
Hmm, I switched it to %set_build_flags but it still doesn't generate any debug package.
I think I tried something similar when I was first packaging this and got the same result, hence debug_packge %{nil}

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-32-aarch64/01619173-chatty/builder-live.log.gz

Comment 3 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2020-08-21 08:10:59 UTC
You posted the build log for a different package, I think the correct one is this:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-32-aarch64/01619176-purple-mm-sms/build.log.gz

Hm. I don't see any obvious reason why generating debuginfo doesn't work here. I'll try to take a better look sometime later.

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-08-26 22:07:04 UTC
 - The library file is installed with 0644 so the debuginfo won't be generated. You need to fix the Makefile:

	install -m 0755 $(TARGET) $(DESTDIR)$(PLUGIN_DIR_PURPLE)

Could also use "install -p" everywhere to keep timestamp.

I sent a Merge Request upstream: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/purple-mm-sms/-/merge_requests/24



From 45b0b99d0d173b229d0a4b574543bf45f7dfa359 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Robert-Andr=C3=A9=20Mauchin?= <zebob.m>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 22:03:31 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Install library with correct executable permissions

Also use "install -p" to keep timestamps.
---
 Makefile | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 6ea210e..41cd518 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-
 CC = gcc
 LIBS = purple mm-glib
 PKG_CONFIG = pkg-config
@@ -8,6 +7,7 @@ CFLAGS += -fPIC -DPIC
 LDLIBS += $(shell $(PKG_CONFIG) --libs $(LIBS))
 
 DIR_PERM  = 0755
+LIB_PERM  = 0755
 FILE_PERM = 0644
 
 PLUGIN_DIR_PURPLE	   = $(shell $(PKG_CONFIG) --variable=plugindir purple)
@@ -29,10 +29,10 @@ clean:
 
 install:
 	mkdir   -p $(DESTDIR)$(PLUGIN_DIR_PURPLE)
-	install -m $(FILE_PERM) $(TARGET) $(DESTDIR)$(PLUGIN_DIR_PURPLE)
+	install -pm $(LIB_PERM) $(TARGET) $(DESTDIR)$(PLUGIN_DIR_PURPLE)
 	for i in 16 22 48; do \
 	    mkdir   -p $(DESTDIR)$(DATA_ROOT_DIR_PURPLE)/pixmaps/pidgin/protocols/$$i; \
-	    install -m $(FILE_PERM) icons/mm-sms-$${i}px.png $(DESTDIR)$(DATA_ROOT_DIR_PURPLE)/pixmaps/pidgin/protocols/$$i/mm-sms.png; \
+	    install -pm $(FILE_PERM) icons/mm-sms-$${i}px.png $(DESTDIR)$(DATA_ROOT_DIR_PURPLE)/pixmaps/pidgin/protocols/$$i/mm-sms.png; \
 	done
 
 $(TARGET): $(OBJECTS)
-- 
2.26.2

Comment 5 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-08-26 22:22:23 UTC
 - Ask upstream to provide a license file

 - License is GPLv2+

 - Use the above patch, give it a proper name and add a comment explaining why it is needed.


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.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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 General Public License v2.0 or
     later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 15 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/purple-mm-sms/review-purple-mm-
     sms/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin(purple-telegram, pidgin),
     /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/protocols(purple-plugin_pack-pidgin,
     pidgin), /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/protocols/16(purple-plugin_pack-
     pidgin, pidgin), /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/protocols/22(purple-
     plugin_pack-pidgin, pidgin),
     /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/protocols/48(purple-plugin_pack-pidgin,
     pidgin)
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[-]: 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: purple-mm-sms-0.1.7-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          purple-mm-sms-debuginfo-0.1.7-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          purple-mm-sms-debugsource-0.1.7-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          purple-mm-sms-0.1.7-1.fc34.src.rpm
purple-mm-sms.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple
purple-mm-sms.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple
purple-mm-sms.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple
purple-mm-sms.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Comment 6 Nikhil Jha 2020-09-27 20:37:27 UTC
Thank you!

Build with debuginfo & other changes: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1687258/
Spec file URL is the same. https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/purple-mm-sms/-/raw/master/purple-mm-sms.spec

Comment 7 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-10-05 19:04:49 UTC
  - Ask upstream to provide a license file

 → Please add a link to the bugzilla where you request it

Package approved.

Comment 8 sorensentor 2021-01-29 00:55:43 UTC
I got permission from Nikhil to continue this package, but it seems that I can not request a new repo as it has been over 60 days. 

Added a merge request: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/purple-mm-sms/-/merge_requests/28
Issue opened by Nikhil: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/purple-mm-sms/-/issues/19

I'm not sure how the process works for re-approval.

Comment 9 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2021-01-29 02:20:26 UTC
You can't request the repo if you're not the reporter of the bug. You'll have to submit a new request.
NEEDINFO me for the review.

Comment 10 sorensentor 2021-02-08 16:43:18 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1922166 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.