Spec URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/yambar/yambar.spec SRPM URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/yambar/yambar-1.8.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: yambar is a lightweight and configurable status panel (bar, for short) for X11 and Wayland, that goes to great lengths to be both CPU and battery efficient - polling is only done when absolutely necessary. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr
Hello Aleksei, thank you for the package. I tested it on X11 and it works for me. I am not very familiar with the yambar project and C programming, so if you please can help me here - The licensecheck found following: ISC License ----------- yambar/external/river-status-unstable-v1.xml MIT License ----------- yambar/LICENSE NTP License (legal disclaimer) Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- yambar/external/wlr-foreign-toplevel-management-unstable-v1.xml yambar/external/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml Should we mention it in the License field? > * Sun Sep 12 2021 Aleksei Bavshin <alebastr> - 1.7.0-0.1 > * Mon Jul 26 2021 Aleksei Bavshin <alebastr> - 1.6.2-0.1 The release number for older versions is unexpected. I don't see any reason why to deviate from the "Simple versioning" scheme here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_simple_versioning > Use a Release: tag starting with 1 (never 0). Append the Dist > Tag. Increment the release (by 1) for each update you make. Reset to 1 > whenever you change Version:. But those are older changelog entries, and the current release and changelog entry is correct, so I think we don't need to change anything here. > %doc README.md examples/* Just a note (for me) - I wouldn't expect such example scripts in %doc, but other packages do this as well `find /usr/share/doc/ |grep "\.sh$"` so it's probably okay :-)
Hello Jakub, Thanks for the review! > The licensecheck found following: All 3 files are wayland protocol definitions which are not linked directly into the binary. These are processed with `wayland-scanner` to a C source and the existing practice was to consider these generated sources licensed the same as the main project. I'm going to add a following comment above the License tag, based on what we have in wlroots.spec: # The main source is MIT # The included wayland protocol files: # external/river-status-unstable-v1.xml: ISC # external/wlr-foreign-toplevel-management-unstable-v1.xml: HPND-sell-variant # external/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml: HPND-sell-variant # Those files are processed to C-compilable files by the # `wayland-scanner` binary during build and don't alter # the main license of the binaries linking with them by # the underlying licenses. > The release number for older versions is unexpected. I don't see any > reason why to deviate from the "Simple versioning" scheme here I've been maintaining the package in my copr for wayland-related things for a while. Pre-release versioning ensures that if I import the package into Fedora repos with the proper Release tag, it will have a higher NVR and will seamlessly replace the copr build (and it looks like I forgot to do that for 1.8.0 :( ). I'm not going to preserve the changelog from copr anyways, as it does not carry any information useful for Fedora.
> I'm going to add a following comment above the License tag, based on what we have in wlroots.spec: Yes please, that will be perfect. > Pre-release versioning ensures that if I import the package into > Fedora repos with the proper Release tag, it will have a higher NVR > and will seamlessly replace the copr build You are correct, your exact release numbering scheme is documented here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_prerelease_versions so feel free to keep those older changelog entries if you want. Next time I will know this is valid :-)
Spec URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/yambar/yambar.spec SRPM URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/yambar/yambar-1.8.0-1.fc38.src.rpm (In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #3) > You are correct, your exact release numbering scheme is documented here > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > #_prerelease_versions > so feel free to keep those older changelog entries if you want. > > Next time I will know this is valid :-) I feel that I need to clarify that this is not valid in the context of Fedora :-) Pre-release versioning should be used for pre-release upstream versions (i.e. 1.8.0-0.1.rc1). I'm just abusing the versioning scheme because I don't have a better way to ensure that my copr builds will always have lower NVR compared to a package imported to the main repositories after the review.
> I feel that I need to clarify that this is not valid in the context of Fedora :-) > Pre-release versioning should be used for pre-release upstream > versions (i.e. 1.8.0-0.1.rc1). I'm just abusing the versioning scheme > because I don't have a better way to ensure that my copr builds will > always have lower NVR compared to a package imported to the main > repositories after the review. That makes sense, thank you for the explanation.
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 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "ISC License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant". 119 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/yambar/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]: 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 40960 bytes in 6 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]: 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: [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 yambar- devel [x]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://codeberg.org/dnkl/yambar/archive/1.8.0.tar.gz#/yambar-1.8.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 51127d20613666b9924deb9afd92c48d69815c5043d2996b3f0f6e9705fcabc8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51127d20613666b9924deb9afd92c48d69815c5043d2996b3f0f6e9705fcabc8 Requires -------- yambar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfcft.so.4()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5(JSONC_0.14)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpdclient.so.2()(64bit) libmpdclient.so.2(libmpdclient2)(64bit) libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-cursor.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-cursor.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-xkb.so.1()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) libyaml-0.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) yambar-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yambar(x86-64) yambar-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yambar-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- yambar: application() application(yambar.desktop) yambar yambar(x86-64) yambar-devel: yambar-devel yambar-devel(x86-64) yambar-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) yambar-debuginfo yambar-debuginfo(x86-64) yambar-debugsource: yambar-debugsource yambar-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name yambar --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/yambar
FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223
FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724
FEDORA-2022-f2c240a532 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f2c240a532
FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f2c240a532 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-f2c240a532 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f2c240a532 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-f2c240a532 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.