Bug 2093674 - Review Request: hsetroot - An imlib2-based wallpaper composer
Summary: Review Request: hsetroot - An imlib2-based wallpaper composer
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jakub Kadlčík
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 2017870 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-06-05 08:00 UTC by Jani Juhani Sinervo
Modified: 2022-11-10 22:08 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-11-10 22:08:26 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jkadlcik: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jani Juhani Sinervo 2022-06-05 08:00:35 UTC
Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/hsetroot/hsetroot.spec
SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/hsetroot/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc36.src.rpm
Description: Yet another wallpaper application, that can set the wallpaper even with compositors like picom
Fedora Account System Username: sham1

This application allows the setting of background colors or pictures like xsetroot, but unlike xsetroot, this one works even when an external compositor like picom is active. Being based on imlib2 also gives it access to a multitude of image formats it may use as wallpapers.

----

This package was already approved, but it had some changes applied to it, and I forgot to request a branch for it within the 60 day window, so here's a new review.

Comment 1 Jani Juhani Sinervo 2022-06-05 08:00:55 UTC
*** Bug 2017870 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Jakub Kadlčík 2022-09-04 15:33:04 UTC
Hello Jani,
I tried to use your package and it works for me.

> %set_build_flags

This macro should be called automatically now
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck

It doesn't mind if you call it manually as well but you
shouldn't need to.

> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/himdel/hsetroot/archive/refs/tags/1.0.5.tar.gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a

This was found by the fedora-review tool. But I also
encountered it when downloading the Source0, your Patch0
and tried to apply it using 

    rpmbuild -bp ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/hsetroot.spec

They don't match

    patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
    1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.rej
    error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IBoWJV (%prep)

Can you please take a look?

Comment 3 Jani Juhani Sinervo 2022-09-20 12:08:48 UTC
Hi.

> This macro should be called automatically now
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck

I've now gotten rid of it.

> They don't match

Hmm, that's weird. I can't reproduce that error and the patch seems to apply just fine.

Anyway, here's the updated files:

Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/hsetroot/hsetroot.spec
SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/hsetroot/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc36.src.rpm

Comment 4 Jakub Kadlčík 2022-09-25 14:49:45 UTC
Thank you for the change,
the package looks good to me now.

Ideally, you should ask upstream to provide a manual page but I won't
block the review because of that.



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]: 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 4
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jkadlcik/2093674-hsetroot/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.
[-]: 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.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: 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]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %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]: 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: 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)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 3

hsetroot.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/hsr-outputs /lib64/libImlib2.so.1
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsr-outputs-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64
hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hsetroot
hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hsr-outputs
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hsetroot.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hsetroot-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsetroot-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'

hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsr-outputs-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/hsr-outputs-1.0.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'

hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/49/8d7207463cb1450713aa57f663f7c480729c78 ../../../.build-id/49/8d7207463cb1450713aa57f663f7c480729c78
hsetroot-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/c9/df25d030b54fc32ccf069d46d908c7ab78a5de ../../../.build-id/c9/df25d030b54fc32ccf069d46d908c7ab78a5de
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 13 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/himdel/hsetroot/archive/refs/tags/1.0.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cff5f83b85a21e0c5c8c8eecbd552090bb75d8ac59e27b0bae48046f9cb5a44a


Requires
--------
hsetroot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libImlib2.so.1()(64bit)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXinerama.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

hsetroot-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

hsetroot-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
hsetroot:
    hsetroot
    hsetroot(x86-64)

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

hsetroot-debugsource:
    hsetroot-debugsource
    hsetroot-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2093674
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, R, fonts, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Python, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2022-09-26 00:50:00 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hsetroot

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2022-09-29 21:30:34 UTC
FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2022-09-30 01:14:29 UTC
FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f 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-2022-97ff09da0f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f

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

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2022-11-10 22:08:26 UTC
FEDORA-2022-97ff09da0f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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.