Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04510554-wl-mirror/wl-mirror.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04510554-wl-mirror/wl-mirror-0.11.2-0.1.fc37.src.rpm Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/4510554/ Description: Simple output mirror client for Wlroots-based compositors. wl-mirror attempts to provide a solution to sway's lack of output mirroring by mirroring an output onto a client surface. Fedora Account System Username: alebastr
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed === Recommendations === - wlr-protocols has own upstream, it should have own package and depend on it. But that upstream does not even has own license file and no other package bundles it, so it might be required later only. ===== 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", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pihhan/fedora/review/2095936-wl-mirror/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. [x]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: %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) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Ferdi265/wl-mirror/releases/download/v0.11.2/wl-mirror-0.11.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6ae70c0912eded7f99af16d97f48aa68bbf0e2626ecdc50284f70e237096d6c6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6ae70c0912eded7f99af16d97f48aa68bbf0e2626ecdc50284f70e237096d6c6 Requires -------- wl-mirror (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libEGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLESv2.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-egl.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wl-mirror-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wl-mirror-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wl-mirror: bundled(wlr-protocols) wl-mirror wl-mirror(x86-64) wl-mirror-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wl-mirror-debuginfo wl-mirror-debuginfo(x86-64) wl-mirror-debugsource: wl-mirror-debugsource wl-mirror-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2095936 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Python, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #1) > - wlr-protocols has own upstream, it should have own package and depend on > it. But that upstream does not even has own license file and no other > package bundles it, so it might be required later only. Thanks for the review! wlr-protocols upstream does not recommend to consume it as a shared package. Applications normally require an exact revision of these protocol files, and the upstream recommendation is to copy only the files you need at the exact state you need. For example, we already have a couple dozens of copies of unstable/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml (varying from version 1 to v4) in the existing Fedora packages. The only downstream that ships the wlr-protocols package is nixpkgs (https://repology.org/project/wlr-protocols/versions), which could be explained by the nature of dependencies in nix - it's always exact and multiple versions can coexist.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wl-mirror
FEDORA-2022-e512f5358c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e512f5358c
FEDORA-2022-e512f5358c 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-e512f5358c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e512f5358c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-e512f5358c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.