Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03291422-openrgb/openrgb.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03291422-openrgb/openrgb-0.7-3.fc36.src.rpm Description: Visit our website at https://openrgb.org! One of the biggest complaints about RGB is the software ecosystem surrounding it. Every manufacturer has their own app, their own brand, their own style. If you want to mix and match devices, you end up with a ton of conflicting, functionally identical apps competing for your background resources. On top of that, these apps are proprietary and Windows-only. Some even require online accounts. What if there was a way to control all of your RGB devices from a single app, on both Windows and Linux, without any nonsense? That is what OpenRGB sets out to achieve. One app to rule them all. Features * Set colors and select effect modes for a wide variety of RGB hardware * Save and load profiles * Control lighting from third party software using the OpenRGB SDK * Command line interface * Connect multiple instances of OpenRGB to synchronize lighting across multiple PCs * Can operate standalone or in a client/headless server configuration * View device information * No official/manufacturer software required * Graphical view of device LEDs makes creating custom patterns easy Fedora Account System Username: atim --- Scratch build successful for all arches: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82287813 Fedora review check: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03291422-openrgb/fedora-review/review.txt --- All necessary fixes upstreamed: https://gitlab.com/CalcProgrammer1/OpenRGB/-/merge_requests?scope=all&state=all&author_username=tim74. r3pek if you want to co-maintain package just let me know.
*** Bug 1835958 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
All in all spec looks good expect this: 1. I think it will be better to change License tag to "GPLv2 and GPLv3+" to reflect bundled libs licenses; 2. %post script reloading udev rules is not needed, rules would be reloaded automatically (see: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/P7NHGIP3VKWOMVHET5QMEPYMQWVIWO56/) 3. LICENSE file should belong to main package
It seems like %post script is actually needed, so better to keep it. And still I can't find Fedora packaging guidelines about how to package udev rules that lives in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/.
One more little thing - I think it will be better to reset package release to 1.
Fixed listed issues. New build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04334733-openrgb/openrgb.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/for-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04334733-openrgb/openrgb-0.7-1.fc37.src.rpm
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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0". 930 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zawertun/2049772-openrgb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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: [-]: 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 openrgb- udev-rules [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/CalcProgrammer1/OpenRGB/-/archive/release_0.7/OpenRGB-release_0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6052e04ad736f94a91a386f6cfc0aaff9554fafdabe99cdd46a296fd49132569 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6052e04ad736f94a91a386f6cfc0aaff9554fafdabe99cdd46a296fd49132569 Requires -------- openrgb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme 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) 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) libhidapi-hidraw.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmbedcrypto.so.7()(64bit) libmbedtls.so.14()(64bit) libmbedx509.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) openrgb-udev-rules rtld(GNU_HASH) openrgb-udev-rules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): systemd-udev openrgb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openrgb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- openrgb: application() application(OpenRGB.desktop) bundled(hueplusplus) bundled(libcmmk) metainfo() metainfo(org.openrgb.OpenRGB.metainfo.xml) openrgb openrgb(x86-64) openrgb-udev-rules: openrgb-udev-rules openrgb-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) openrgb-debuginfo openrgb-debuginfo(x86-64) openrgb-debugsource: openrgb-debugsource openrgb-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2049772 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, fonts, R, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openrgb
FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17
FEDORA-2022-f10e2bee3f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f10e2bee3f
FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a
FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a 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-2022-3b1634fa0a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f10e2bee3f 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-2022-f10e2bee3f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f10e2bee3f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f10e2bee3f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.