Bug 1889105 - Review Request: dialect - A translation app for GNOME based on Google Translate
Summary: Review Request: dialect - A translation app for GNOME based on Google Translate
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andy Mender
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1889104
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-10-17 21:01 UTC by Lyes Saadi
Modified: 2020-11-02 01:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-11-02 01:10:45 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
andymenderunix: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Lyes Saadi 2020-10-17 21:01:49 UTC
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/dialect/dialect.spec
SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/dialect/dialect-1.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm

Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lyessaadi/dialect/build/1708803/

Description:
A translation app for GNOME based on Google Translate.

Fedora Account System Username: lyessaadi

Comment 1 Andy Mender 2020-10-18 10:14:36 UTC
> BuildRequires:  python3-gobject-devel
> BuildRequires:  python3-googletrans
> BuildRequires:  python3-gtts
> 
> Requires:       hicolor-icon-theme
> Requires:       gstreamer1-plugins-base
> Requires:       gtk3
> Requires:       libhandy1
> Requires:       python3-gobject
> Requires:       python3-googletrans
> Requires:       python3-gtts

Python Requires and BuildRequires should follow the format "python3dist(foo)".
Also, from rpmlint:
> dialect.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy1

The dependency autoresolver will do this for you. No need to declare a lib dependency explicitly.

The rest looks okay. Please, fix the issues on package import. Package approved!

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dialect/copr-
     build-1708803/review-dialect/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.6 starting (python version = 3.8.6)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.6
INFO: Mock Version: 2.6
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dialect/copr-build-1708803/dialect-1.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dialect/copr-build-1708803/dialect-1.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dialect-1.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          dialect-1.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
dialect.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy1
dialect.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dialect
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gi-lom/dialect/archive/1.0.0/dialect-1.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6dc6599905d2a376d99a8cff3ef64c93b1b7b99d84f7850dfe56313ebc5883e6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6dc6599905d2a376d99a8cff3ef64c93b1b7b99d84f7850dfe56313ebc5883e6


Requires
--------
dialect (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    gstreamer1-plugins-base
    gtk3
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libhandy1
    python3-gobject
    python3-googletrans
    python3-gtts



Provides
--------
dialect:
    application()
    application(com.github.gi_lom.dialect.desktop)
    dialect
    metainfo()
    metainfo(com.github.gi_lom.dialect.metainfo.xml)

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-10-21 02:04:15 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dialect

Comment 3 Lyes Saadi 2020-10-22 21:45:59 UTC
Thank you for this review, since python-googletrans is _finally_ in the repos, I'll be able to send this as well :P!

> > dialect.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy1

> The dependency autoresolver will do this for you. No need to declare a lib dependency explicitly.

That won't work actually since this is a noarch package.

I just tested it by removing libhandy1:

```
➜ sudo dnf repoquery -C --requires /home/lyes/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/dialect-1.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
[sudo] Mot de passe de lyes : 
Dernière vérification de l’expiration des métadonnées effectuée il y a 2:30:25 le jeu. 22 oct. 2020 20:10:09.
/usr/bin/python3
gstreamer1-plugins-base
gtk3
hicolor-icon-theme
python3-gobject
python3-googletrans
python3-gtts
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
```

I actually had the same problem with Setzer :P. Here I think it's an issue with rpmlint, but I'm not sure. Is there another solution I'm just not aware of?

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2020-10-24 12:02:54 UTC
FEDORA-2020-c469542619 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c469542619

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2020-10-25 02:26:11 UTC
FEDORA-2020-c469542619 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-c469542619 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c469542619

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2020-11-02 01:10:45 UTC
FEDORA-2020-c469542619 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


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