Bug 1905260 - Review Request: yascreen - Yet Another Screen Library (lib(n)curses alternative)
Summary: Review Request: yascreen - Yet Another Screen Library (lib(n)curses alternative)
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
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:
Blocks: 1905270
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-12-07 21:47 UTC by Boian Bonev
Modified: 2020-12-18 01:04 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-12-18 01:04:41 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
andymenderunix: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Boian Bonev 2020-12-07 21:47:27 UTC
Spec URL: https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/raw/master/fedora/yascreen.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/raw/fedora/fedora/yascreen-1.85-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: Yet Another Screen Library (lib(n)curses alternative)
Fedora Account System Username: bbonev1

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56884926
scratch build before fixing the generated .pc file

rpmlint complains about stdio, stdout, wcwidth (libc symbols) and linenoise (name of another project)

Comment 1 Boian Bonev 2020-12-07 22:08:35 UTC
This library is a dependency of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905270

Comment 2 Andy Mender 2020-12-08 13:28:29 UTC
> This library is a dependency of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905270

Please, mark the dependency also in the review request on Bugzilla so it gets tracked correctly.

Comment 3 Andy Mender 2020-12-08 13:37:30 UTC
> URL:            https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/
> Source0:        https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/releases/download/v%{version}/yascreen-%{version}.tar.xz
> Source1:        https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/releases/download/v%{version}/yascreen-%{version}.tar.xz.asc

You can reuse the URL in other fields with the %{url} macro.

> # to remove after EPEL7 becomes obsolete
> %ldconfig_scriptlets

On Fedora one should use direct ldconfig calls, I think: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_linker_configuration_files

The rest looks good! Approved! Please, fix above on import. Full review below:

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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3.0 or later)", "Unknown
     or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/yascreen/yascreen/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.
[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.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     yascreen-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: yascreen-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          yascreen-devel-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          yascreen-debuginfo-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          yascreen-debugsource-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          yascreen-1.85-1.fc32.src.rpm
yascreen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio
yascreen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out
yascreen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wcwidth -> width
yascreen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linenoise -> line noise, line-noise, noiseless
yascreen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio
yascreen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out
yascreen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wcwidth -> width
yascreen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linenoise -> line noise, line-noise, noiseless
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: yascreen-debuginfo-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: no installed packages by name yascreen-debuginfo
(none): E: no installed packages by name yascreen
(none): E: no installed packages by name yascreen-debugsource
(none): E: no installed packages by name yascreen-devel
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bbonev/yascreen/master/debian/upstream/signing-key.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fca688fa9ef68202009a3403e7de763d5fbd77d50d270a896b098dc1e44bef07
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fca688fa9ef68202009a3403e7de763d5fbd77d50d270a896b098dc1e44bef07
https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/releases/download/v1.85/yascreen-1.85.tar.xz.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 33df2068dc221a16428b03ba4c98ca5fd89c6d96a055941e3bb3206ebb75fadc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 33df2068dc221a16428b03ba4c98ca5fd89c6d96a055941e3bb3206ebb75fadc
https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/releases/download/v1.85/yascreen-1.85.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 90e3d84d4b02a86c344fb02c7ad7ccf48e77e65b2566faffc2a163ff587e9b13
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90e3d84d4b02a86c344fb02c7ad7ccf48e77e65b2566faffc2a163ff587e9b13


Requires
--------
yascreen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

yascreen-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libyascreen.so.0()(64bit)
    yascreen(x86-64)

yascreen-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

yascreen-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
yascreen:
    libyascreen.so.0()(64bit)
    libyascreen.so.0(YASCREEN_1.79)(64bit)
    libyascreen.so.0(YASCREEN_1.83)(64bit)
    yascreen
    yascreen(x86-64)

yascreen-devel:
    pkgconfig(yascreen)
    yascreen-devel
    yascreen-devel(x86-64)

yascreen-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    yascreen-debuginfo
    yascreen-debuginfo(x86-64)

yascreen-debugsource:
    yascreen-debugsource
    yascreen-debugsource(x86-64)

Comment 4 Boian Bonev 2020-12-08 16:40:50 UTC
Thanks for the quick review, Andy!

I have just added dependency of 1905270 on this bug.

> URL:            https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/

I didn't know that, will fix it.

> # to remove after EPEL7 becomes obsolete
> %ldconfig_scriptlets

The package does not change ld.so.conf.d/* or ld.so.conf, most probably this is also not needed for EPEL7 too. TBH, I have copied that from another spec file and I need to double check it; and in case this assumption is correct, will remove it.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-12-08 21:45:37 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/yascreen

Comment 6 Boian Bonev 2020-12-09 00:48:37 UTC
A comment for %ldconfig_scriptlets - while doing various builds from the same spec file, I have got confused that it is reused for the various releases. With git there is branch for each and they may diverge if needed...

That part is removed from the rawhide branch.

Comment 7 Andy Mender 2020-12-10 23:05:26 UTC
For changes across Fedora releases, you can use conditional statements. However, it's true that for instance EPEL branches may diverge more.


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