Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/fasttrack.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/fasttrack-5.3.3-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Tracking objects in video recording can be tedious. Existing software are expensive, the learning curve can be steep, necessitate a powerful computer, and the workflow can not be easily adapted when the project evolved. FastTrack is a free (as freedom) desktop tracking software, easy to install, easy to use, and performant. The software can be downloaded for Linux, macOS, and Windows, and a public API is available to embed the core of the software in any C++/Qt project. Two main features are implemented in the software: • An automatic tracking algorithm that can detect and track objects (conserving the objects’ identities across the video recording). • A manual review of the tracking where errors can be corrected rapidly and easily to achieve 100% accuracy. Fedora Account System Username: music FastTrack is a relatively standard C++ Qt5 desktop application, with a standalone CLI version and some C++-based and Python-based tests. Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75119335 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75123398 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75123225 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75123490 This package was requested for NeuroFedora, and @neuro-sig will be granted commit privileges.
https://pagure.io/neuro-sig/NeuroFedora/issue/423
Thanks Ben, I'll review this. Cheers,
LGTM XXXX APPROVED XXXX Bits to look at before import: - No harm including the desktop file for the cli, but I wonder if it needs a "Terminal=true" line there for it to run correctly. https://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s06.html - Do we want to generate the manual pdf? I see this in the build log: + pandoc ../../user_manual/user_manual.html -o ../../user_manual/user_manual.pdf pdflatex not found. Please select a different --pdf-engine or install pdflatex Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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. [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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License". 412 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/2001232-fasttrack/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. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: fasttrack (description), fasttrack-cli (description), fasttrack-doc (description) [-]: 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. ^ Builds on whatever arch qt5_qtwebengine does [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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 fasttrack-cli ^ This is OK---the cli is independent of the GUI. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass. ^ Warnings and errors thrown for missing backends, but all tests pass correctly. [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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: fasttrack-5.3.3-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm fasttrack-cli-5.3.3-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm fasttrack-doc-5.3.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm fasttrack-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm fasttrack-debugsource-5.3.3-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm fasttrack-5.3.3-1.fc36.src.rpm fasttrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce fasttrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance fasttrack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS fasttrack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FastTrack fasttrack-cli.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce fasttrack-cli.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance fasttrack-cli.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS fasttrack-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce fasttrack-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance fasttrack-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS fasttrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce fasttrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance fasttrack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS fasttrack.src:216: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog fasttrack.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-Do-not-override-distribution-compiler-flags.patch fasttrack.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: %{forgeurl}/commit/ff3816295f0d223d2c47a8be4ca9c523f88639a9.patch 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. ^ - Looks like rpmlint doesn't know about the forge and rpmautospec macros yet, but these are all OK. - spelling suggestions are fine, but we can stick to what upstream write. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fasttrack-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm fasttrack-cli-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FastTrackOrg/FastTrack/archive/v5.3.3/FastTrack-5.3.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : abd980117a18fbd4c9d2f573cf52b304a285454ff69146b9d49abe55d546faac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : abd980117a18fbd4c9d2f573cf52b304a285454ff69146b9d49abe55d546faac Requires -------- fasttrack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libGL.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5WebEngineWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebEngineWidgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopencv_calib3d.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_core.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_features2d.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_imgcodecs.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_imgproc.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_video.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_videoio.so.4.5()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) fasttrack-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libGL.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopencv_calib3d.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_core.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_features2d.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_imgcodecs.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_imgproc.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_video.so.4.5()(64bit) libopencv_videoio.so.4.5()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) fasttrack-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fasttrack-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fasttrack-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fasttrack: application() application(sh.fasttrack.fasttrack.desktop) fasttrack fasttrack(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(sh.fasttrack.fasttrack.metainfo.xml) fasttrack-cli: application() application(sh.fasttrack.fasttrackcli.desktop) fasttrack-cli fasttrack-cli(x86-64) fasttrack-doc: fasttrack-doc fasttrack-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fasttrack-debuginfo fasttrack-debuginfo(x86-64) fasttrack-debugsource: fasttrack-debugsource fasttrack-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2001232 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, R, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, Python, Java, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! > - No harm including the desktop file for the cli, but I wonder if it needs a "Terminal=true" line there for it to run correctly. https://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s06.html You know, I tried actually using the desktop file, and I think it’s pointless. I just hadn’t returned to this review bug to say so. The CLI just prints an error message and exits promptly. So I’m just going to add a comment and default-disable that build conditional. (It actually already has “Terminal=true”; see https://github.com/FastTrackOrg/FastTrack/blob/ff38162/sh.fasttrack.fasttrackcli.desktop#L11.) > - Do we want to generate the manual pdf? I see this in the build log: > + pandoc ../../user_manual/user_manual.html -o ../../user_manual/user_manual.pdf > pdflatex not found. Please select a different --pdf-engine or install pdflatex Yes, thanks! That’s an oversight, as you can tell from the fact that I did already BR pandoc and librsvg2-tools. I’ll add the missing BR on tex(latex). To guard against it disappearing again in the future, I’ll either change the files list to be more explicit, or possibly add --fail-if-warnings to the pandoc invocation.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fasttrack
FEDORA-2021-97ca3268b7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-97ca3268b7
FEDORA-2021-193d240372 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-193d240372
FEDORA-2021-ef237d560d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ef237d560d
FEDORA-2021-ef237d560d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-ef237d560d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ef237d560d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-193d240372 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-2021-193d240372 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-193d240372 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-97ca3268b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-97ca3268b7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-97ca3268b7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-97ca3268b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-193d240372 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-ef237d560d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.