Bug 1979102 - Review Request: xstdcmap - Utility to define standard colormap properties
Summary: Review Request: xstdcmap - Utility to define standard colormap properties
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-07-05 02:03 UTC by Davide Cavalca
Modified: 2021-07-11 01:03 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-07-11 01:03:54 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
code: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Davide Cavalca 2021-07-05 02:03:48 UTC
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/xstdcmap/xstdcmap.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/xstdcmap/xstdcmap-1.0.4-3.fc35.src.rpm

Description:
The xstdcmap utility can be used to selectively define standard colormap
properties.  It is intended to be run from a user's X startup script to
create standard colormap definitions in order to facilitate sharing of
scarce colormap resources among clients using PseudoColor visuals.

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca

Comment 1 Davide Cavalca 2021-07-05 02:03:50 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71318705

Comment 2 Davide Cavalca 2021-07-05 02:04:26 UTC
This package will need to be unretired, I'll file the releng ticket once this is approved.

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2021-07-08 01:15:08 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

===== Notes (no change required for these) =====

- Nicely updated, in general!

- Whether or not to autoreconf is currently seen as a matter of taste; the
  packaging guidelines express no preference, although some individual
  packagers feel strongly one way or the other.


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xstdcmap
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

  This is OK since the review is for unretirement.

- Please change

    %configure --disable-silent-rules

  to just

    %configure

  since --disable-silent-rules is redundant with the V=0 added in the
  %make_build macro.

- You should verify the upstream signature for the release tarball
  (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification).
  See
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/c/66eac5fadab701bf07375d22b63ecbf3ada2ec7b?branch=66eac5fadab701bf07375d22b63ecbf3ada2ec7b
  for a similar example.

  Start by adding:

    Source1:        %{url}/pub/individual/app/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2.sig

  and then something like:

    # Keyring created on 2021-07-07 with:
    #   workdir="$(mktemp --directory)"
    #   gpg2 --with-fingerprint xstdcmap-1.0.4.tar.bz2.sig 2>&1 |
    #     awk '$2 == "using" { print "0x" $NF }' |
    #     xargs gpg2 --homedir="${workdir}" \
    #         --keyserver=hkps://pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys
    #   gpg2 --homedir="${workdir}" --export --export-options export-minimal \
    #       > xstdcmap.gpg
    #   rm -rf "${workdir}"
    # Inspect keys using:
    #   gpg2 --list-keys --no-default-keyring --keyring ./xstdcmap.gpg
    Source2:        %{name}.gpg

  Of course, you must follow the directions in the comments to generate the
  .gpg file. The .gpg file will have to be committed to git, and the .sig file
  will have to be uploaded to the lookaside cache with the tarball.

  Now add:

    BuildRequires:  gnupg2

  and, in %prep:

    %{gpgverify} --keyring='%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%{SOURCE1}' --data='%{SOURCE0}'

  If you have any trouble, Iā€™m happy to help debug.


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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]: 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.
[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", "FSF All Permissive License", "NTP
     License (legal disclaimer)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)
     [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
     v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat
     License [generated file]", "[generated file]". 7 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/1979102-xstdcmap/licensecheck.txt

     All the other licenses belong to build-system files that do not affect the
     license of the binary RPM.

[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.
[-]: 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 2 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 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 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.

     Upstream does not provide any tests.

[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: xstdcmap-1.0.4-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xstdcmap-debuginfo-1.0.4-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xstdcmap-debugsource-1.0.4-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          xstdcmap-1.0.4-3.fc35.src.rpm
xstdcmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) colormap -> color map, color-map, colorway
xstdcmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colormap -> color map, color-map, colorway
xstdcmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart
xstdcmap.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-server-utils
xstdcmap.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) colormap -> color map, color-map, colorway
xstdcmap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colormap -> color map, color-map, colorway
xstdcmap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xstdcmap-debuginfo-1.0.4-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/xstdcmap-1.0.4.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 06898b3f1eaad0b205ff3c75bdefa3207868b889d4cb37b32b8267b2bbfe6f8b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06898b3f1eaad0b205ff3c75bdefa3207868b889d4cb37b32b8267b2bbfe6f8b


Requires
--------
xstdcmap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibc
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXmu.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

xstdcmap-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xstdcmap-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
xstdcmap:
    xstdcmap
    xstdcmap(x86-64)

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

xstdcmap-debugsource:
    xstdcmap-debugsource
    xstdcmap-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1979102
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Java, Ruby, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, Perl, Python, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 4 Davide Cavalca 2021-07-08 04:40:22 UTC
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/xstdcmap/xstdcmap.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/xstdcmap/xstdcmap-1.0.4-4.fc35.src.rpm

Changelog:
- Verify source signature
- Drop --disable-silent-rules from configure

Comment 5 Davide Cavalca 2021-07-08 04:41:02 UTC
And this is the update-keyring.sh I used to generate the keyring (that I plan to commit to dist-git alongside the package).

#!/bin/sh

name='xstdcmap'
version=$(rpm -q --qf '%{VERSION}\n' --specfile "${name}.spec" | head -1)

workdir="$(mktemp -d)"
trap 'rm -rf "$workdir"' EXIT

gpg2 --with-fingerprint "${name}-${version}.tar.bz2.sig" 2>&1 |
  awk '$2 == "using" { print "0x" $NF }' |
  xargs gpg2 --homedir="${workdir}" \
             --keyserver='hkps://pgp.mit.edu' \
	     --recv-keys

gpg2 --homedir="${workdir}" --export --export-options export-minimal > "${name}.gpg"

Comment 6 Ben Beasley 2021-07-08 12:20:20 UTC
Excellent! Thanks. Package approved.

Comment 7 Davide Cavalca 2021-07-08 14:47:39 UTC
Thanks! I  filed the releng ticket at https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10201

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2021-07-09 17:38:31 UTC
FEDORA-2021-da255c6a38 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-da255c6a38

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2021-07-10 01:49:30 UTC
FEDORA-2021-da255c6a38 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-da255c6a38`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-da255c6a38

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

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2021-07-11 01:03:54 UTC
FEDORA-2021-da255c6a38 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.