Bug 1928436 - Review Request: cm_rgb - Utility to control RGB on AMD Wraith Prism
Summary: Review Request: cm_rgb - Utility to control RGB on AMD Wraith Prism
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2021-02-14 01:52 UTC by Dennis Gilmore
Modified: 2021-04-24 20:13 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2021-04-24 20:13:21 UTC
Type: ---
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dennis Gilmore 2021-02-14 01:52:29 UTC
Spec URL: https://ausil.us/packages/python3-cm_rgb.spec
SRPM URL: https://ausil.us/packages/python3-cm_rgb-0.3.5-1.fc35.src.rpm
Description: Utility to control RGB on AMD Wraith Prism
Fedora Account System Username: ausil

Comment 1 Dennis Gilmore 2021-02-15 23:03:06 UTC
Just noting that upstream renamed the project from cm-rgb to cm_rgb which makes it possible to use the macros in the normal way.

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2021-03-10 09:05:19 UTC
 - This is not needed anymore:


Source0:        https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/61/2d/7e002b4d24b6d857a85fe47dc769d9a1b8113119411c8c604f2bf39f96c5/cm_rgb-0.3.5.tar.gz


Source0:        %{pypi_source}

 - There is no tests provided so this can be removed:

# use what your upstream is using
%{__python3} setup.py test

 - The package should be named python-cm_rgb with a python3 subpackage (-n python3-cm_rgb) or the main package should just be shipped as a binary package with Name:           cm_rgb

 - This is not needed:


 - Remove the executable bits for:

python3-cm_rgb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/cm_rgb-0.3.5-py3.9.egg-info/dependency_links.txt

Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or
     generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-cm_rgb/review-
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: python3-cm_rgb-0.3.5-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
python3-cm_rgb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/cm_rgb-0.3.5-py3.9.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
python3-cm_rgb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm-rgb-cli
python3-cm_rgb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm-rgb-gui
python3-cm_rgb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cm-rgb-monitor
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

Comment 3 Dennis Gilmore 2021-04-14 16:49:18 UTC
Spec URL: https://ausil.us/packages/cm_rgb.spec
SRPM URL: https://ausil.us/packages/cm_rgb-0.3.5-2.fc34.src.rpm

Addressed issues identified in review

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2021-04-15 14:21:09 UTC
Package approved.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-04-15 20:15:40 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cm_rgb

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2021-04-16 13:10:27 UTC
FEDORA-2021-e33bbbb9e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e33bbbb9e0

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2021-04-16 16:25:18 UTC
FEDORA-2021-e33bbbb9e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e33bbbb9e0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e33bbbb9e0

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

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2021-04-24 20:13:21 UTC
FEDORA-2021-e33bbbb9e0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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.