Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdriveclient.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdriveclient-0.0.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: X2Go is a server-based computing environment with - session resuming - low bandwidth support - session brokerage support - client-side mass storage mounting support - client-side printing support - audio support - authentication by smartcard and USB stick X2Go KDrive Client is the KDrive graphical backend (Qt%{qt_version}) for X2Go Client that provides support for running modern desktop environments like GNOME, KDE Plasma, Cinnamon, etc. in X2Go Sessions. The X2Go KDrive graphical backend is not suitable for low bandwidth WAN connections between X2Go Client and X2Go Server. It is supposed for X2Go being used on the local area network. Fedora Account System Username: orion https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102195142
Hi Orion, thanks for working on this. Here are a first few remarks from a preliminary review. Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0+'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ==>probably should be: "GPL-3.0-or-later" - Spec should use %global instead of %define unless justified Current version has "%define qt_version 5" - there is no %check section in the spec file ==>actually it is also to me not clear how a tool like this could be checked during the rpm build proces. - Related to this, I could not easily check if "the Package functions as described". According to the x2go wiki website: https://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/wiki:advanced:x2gokdrive:start using this tool requires to rename x2gokdriveclient to the default name nxproxy and x2gokdrive to the default name x2goagent. Is it reasonable to expect this manual installation step from the user? Or did I overlook something?
(In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #1) > Hi Orion, > thanks for working on this. Here are a first few remarks from a preliminary > review. Thanks for the comments. > Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Add BR on gcc-c++. > - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. > Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0+'. > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 > ==>probably should be: "GPL-3.0-or-later" Fixed. > - Spec should use %global instead of %define unless justified > Current version has "%define qt_version 5" Fixed. > - there is no %check section in the spec file > ==>actually it is also to me not clear how a tool like this could be > checked during the rpm build proces. There are no tests to run. > - Related to this, I could not easily check if "the Package functions as > described". > According to the x2go wiki website: > https://wiki.x2go.org/doku.php/wiki:advanced:x2gokdrive:start > using this tool requires to rename x2gokdriveclient to the default name > nxproxy and x2gokdrive to the default name x2goagent. > Is it reasonable to expect this manual installation step from the user? > Or did I overlook something? With current x2goclient, in the session preferences you can check "Run in X2GoKDrive (experimental)" and it will run x2gokdriveclient. Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdriveclient.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdriveclient-0.0.0.1-2.fc40.src.rpm
Hi Orion, package looks okay to me now. The only problem I have is that you seem to have used an older source tarball for your build. It does not match the current upstream source tarball. If you could redo the build with the right sources I think I can approve this review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ==>it seems you have used a different (older) source tar.gz file for your build this time. It differs from the sources on the upstream server. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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 v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 27 files have unknown license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/x2go(x2goserver, cups-x2go), /usr/share/x2go/versions(x2goserver-common, cups-x2go) [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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 8238 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. ==>see above remark below the Issues heading [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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.
I've re-downloaded the source and re-uploaded the srpm.
thanks, looks good now. I have no more comments, so this package is approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/x2gokdriveclient
Checked in and built. Thanks!
*** Bug 2036282 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***