Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive-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 is a KDrive-based Xserver for X2Go. It 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. More information about X.Org can be found at: <URL:https://www.x.org> More information about X2Go can be found at: <URL:https://wiki.x2go.org> Fedora Account System Username: orion https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102195715
Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive-0.0.0.2-1.fc40.src.rpm
Hi Orion, thanks for working on this. Here are a first few remarks from a preliminary review. Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0+'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ==>probably should be: "GPL-2.0-or-later" --Note that I don't see a license file in the source package. so "the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it." Browsing through the files in the sources directory I see several references to GPL v3 or later. Where did you find that the actual license is GPM v2 or later? - why did you include the %description fields twice? - regarding the %check section and the difficulty to install the tools from user perspective see my remarks in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215420
Currently the fedora-review tool fails to build this package and issues the following error: ERROR: 'Source1 file /home/user_to_make_rpms/reviews/2215421-x2gokdrive/srpm-unpacked/copyright is missing in src.rpm. Conditional source inclusion?' (logs in /home/user_to_make_rpms/.cache/fedora-review.log) Could you please add this copyright file to the srpm?
Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive-0.0.0.2-2fc40.src.rpm - Fix License tag and add upstream copyright file - Add %%check
Thanks for the update. There is a typo in the SRPM URL, you are missing a dot between 2-2 and fc40. But manually downloading https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive-0.0.0.2-2.fc40.src.rpm works for me. Unfortunately the build fails on my side with the following error in the %check stage: .... SEL:x2gokdriveselection.c:376,string_to_atom() The image/jpeg atom has ID 241 SEL:x2gokdriveselection.c:376,string_to_atom() The PIXMAP atom has ID 20 SEL:x2gokdriveselection.c:376,string_to_atom() The image/bmp atom has ID 242 ++ cat '/builddir/.x2go/[CS]-9/pid' cat: '/builddir/.x2go/[CS]-9/pid': No such file or directory + kill kill: usage: kill [-s sigspec | -n signum | -sigspec] pid | jobspec ... or kill -l [sigspec] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.w7KkN4 (%check) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.w7KkN4 (%check) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error('Command failed: \n # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 0c9c2b9d4c9b4fa680d40c794abd498d -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root -a -u mockbuild --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.gdz9xbt_:/etc/resolv.conf --bind=/dev/btrfs-control --bind=/dev/mapper/control --bind=/dev/fuse --bind=/dev/loop-control --bind=/dev/loop0 --bind=/dev/loop1 --bind=/dev/loop2 --bind=/dev/loop3 --bind=/dev/loop4 --bind=/dev/loop5 --bind=/dev/loop6 --bind=/dev/loop7 --bind=/dev/loop8 --bind=/dev/loop9 --bind=/dev/loop10 --bind=/dev/loop11 --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin \'--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\\033]0;<mock-chroot>\\007"\' \'--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \\s-\\v\\$ \' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off bash --login -c \'/usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --noclean --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/x2gokdrive.spec\'\n', 1)] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 93, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 597, in do_with_status raise exception.Error("Command failed: \n # %s\n%s" % (cmd_pretty(command, env), output), child.returncode) mockbuild.exception.Error: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 0c9c2b9d4c9b4fa680d40c794abd498d -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root -a -u mockbuild --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.gdz9xbt_:/etc/resolv.conf --bind=/dev/btrfs-control --bind=/dev/mapper/control --bind=/dev/fuse --bind=/dev/loop-control --bind=/dev/loop0 --bind=/dev/loop1 --bind=/dev/loop2 --bind=/dev/loop3 --bind=/dev/loop4 --bind=/dev/loop5 --bind=/dev/loop6 --bind=/dev/loop7 --bind=/dev/loop8 --bind=/dev/loop9 --bind=/dev/loop10 --bind=/dev/loop11 --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off bash --login -c '/usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --noclean --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/x2gokdrive.spec' Mock Version: 5.2
Also inspecting manually the folders /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/.x2go/C-9/ and /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/.x2go/S-9/ after the failed build I do not see files named pid.
Ah, yeah, I never really managed to get the tests to run properly. At this point I'm just making %check succeed. Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/x2gokdrive-0.0.0.2-2.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6563292 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2215421-x2gokdrive/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06563292-x2gokdrive/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thanks for this updated version. I have a few minor remarks. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ ==>note that in case upstream does not yet support a newer version you can add a comment to explain, and if possible a link to an upstream issue tracker to explain them that this is an issue. - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ==>the copyright file that you included describes GPL-2 and GPL-2+ but the spec file gives GPL-3.0-or-later You added a comment to explain, but if this package actually uses a mixture of GPL-2, GPL-2+, and GPL-3+ then maybe the license flag should be GPL-2.0-or-later ? -rpmspec complains about permissions of the source files. please fix this. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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]: 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 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xorg-x11-server-x2gokdrive [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. [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 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xorg-x11-server-x2gokdrive-0.0.0.2-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm x2gokdrive-debugsource-0.0.0.2-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm x2gokdrive-0.0.0.2-2.fc40.src.rpm ================================= rpmlint session starts ================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppt74mzab')] checks: 31, packages: 3 x2gokdrive.src: W: strange-permission copyright 660 x2gokdrive.src: W: strange-permission x2gokdrive-0.0.0.2.tar.gz 660 x2gokdrive.src: W: strange-permission x2gokdrive.spec 660 x2gokdrive.src: W: strange-permission xorg.conf 660 xorg-x11-server-x2gokdrive.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/share/licenses/xorg-x11-server-x2gokdrive/copyright 660 xorg-x11-server-x2gokdrive.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/x2gokdrive == 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 1.5 s == Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 xorg-x11-server-x2gokdrive.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/share/licenses/xorg-x11-server-x2gokdrive/copyright 660 xorg-x11-server-x2gokdrive.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/x2gokdrive 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s
(In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #9) > Issues: > ======= > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ I honestly have no idea where this comment is coming from. The package BRs pkgconfig(openssl), which on rawhide brings in: openssl-devel x86_64 1:3.1.1-4.fc40 fedora 2.6 M Although the binaries don't require either of libcrypto or libssl so I'm not entirely sure it's used, despite being checked for: checking for openssl... yes I see no evidence of openssl1.1-devel being involved. > - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > ==>the copyright file that you included describes GPL-2 and GPL-2+ > but the spec file gives GPL-3.0-or-later > You added a comment to explain, but if this package actually > uses a mixture of GPL-2, GPL-2+, and GPL-3+ > then maybe the license flag should be GPL-2.0-or-later ? According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/: The spec file License tag consists of an enumeration of all licenses covering any code or other material contained in the corresponding binary RPM. This enumeration must take the form of an SPDX license expression. No further analysis as to the "effective" license should be done. > -rpmspec complains about permissions of the source files. > please fix this. Fixed.
> I honestly have no idea where this comment is coming from. The package BRs pkgconfig(openssl), which on rawhide brings in: > openssl-devel x86_64 1:3.1.1-4.fc40 fedora 2.6 M > Although the binaries don't require either of libcrypto or libssl so I'm not entirely sure it's used, despite being checked for: > checking for openssl... yes > I see no evidence of openssl1.1-devel being involved. I agree, it seems not used. At least ldd does not show that libssl is loaded by the x2gokdrive executable. > According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/: > The spec file License tag consists of an enumeration of all licenses covering any code or other material contained in the corresponding binary > RPM. This enumeration must take the form of an SPDX license expression. No further analysis as to the "effective" license should be done. Explanation accepted. >> -rpmspec complains about permissions of the source files. >> please fix this. >Fixed. Thanks. You addressed all my remarks, therefore this package is now approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/x2gokdrive
Checked in and build. Thank you for the review!