Spec URL: N/A - requesting to unretire an existing package SRPM URL: N/A - requesting to unretire an existing package Description: Stateless graphical Master Password Manager Fedora Account System Username: stefanb
Never heard of a "Whiteboard" field in Bugzilla, so I don't know where to add "Unretirement" to. (seems like the documentation is out-of-date) Re-Review request created as per comment on original pagure request https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11686 From the pagure request: * upstream project (https://github.com/bkueng/qMasterPassword) is **NOT DEAD* * latest release is 1.2.4, tarball already uploaded * I have the git changes for f38, f39 & rawhide ready locally for release 1.2.4 * scratch builds on koji successful for f38 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106636013), f39 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106636092) & rawhide (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106636583) * F39 build tested on on my laptop running F39 beta. Seems to work fine.
You might want to take a look at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming. The package you want to unretire is orphaned more than 8 weeks. This means the package requires a complete re-review. Could you upload the spec file and SRPM somewhere and share the URLs? You should also fix the bugzilla description. I think it should be "Stateless graphical Master Password Manager".
SPEC: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qmasterpassword/blob/f38/f/qmasterpassword.spec (origin/f38 branch) SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6042/106636042/qmasterpassword-1.2.4-1.fc38.src.rpm + from my local git clone: ~~~sh $ git diff origin/f38..f38 diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 55b7da7..4063668 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ /qMasterPassword-v1.1.tar.gz /qMasterPassword-v1.2.1.tar.gz /qMasterPassword-v1.2.2.tar.gz +/qMasterPassword-v1.2.4.tar.gz diff --git a/qmasterpassword.spec b/qmasterpassword.spec index fa4e781..166cba2 100644 --- a/qmasterpassword.spec +++ b/qmasterpassword.spec @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Name: qmasterpassword -Version: 1.2.2 -Release: 18%{?dist} +Version: 1.2.4 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Stateless graphical Master Password Manager %global project_name qMasterPassword @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ make clean && make %{?_smp_mflags} debug %changelog +* Sun Sep 24 2023 Stefan Becker <chemobejk> 1.2.4-1 +- update to version 1.2.4 + * Fri Jan 20 2023 Fedora Release Engineering <releng> - 1.2.2-18 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Mass_Rebuild diff --git a/sources b/sources index 9f5cba9..d85f3ed 100644 --- a/sources +++ b/sources @@ -1 +1 @@ -3ff8f256a81c30518bce959ea88f3c3d qMasterPassword-v1.2.2.tar.gz +SHA512 (qMasterPassword-v1.2.4.tar.gz) = 29efa0ab4b7c4160c3641e0b65188d7b864a08f72987a5425542683df3aca05c17b8c73ca8a09d6c1d4d3c75e9ff26f90b7b661c95c64f68f371f648cf802d78 ~~~sh
Here is my initial review: * Please change the license to a valid SPDX identifier. In this case it should be `GPL-3.0-only`. * According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/#_packaging, you must add `gcc`, `gcc-c++` or `clang` to `BuildRequires`. * Please remove "(Unretirement review)" from the bug description. * The description includes a link to http://masterpasswordapp.com, which redirects to https://spectre.app/. Please update the description. * According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/#_app_data_validate_usage the appdata.xml file should be located in "%{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/". * Not really an issue, but the marco `commit` should probably be renamed to git_tag or tag as it essentially a git tag and not a commit hash. * Also not an issue, but I would change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot}.
Could you please upload the new spec file and SRPM to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org or some other publicly available space and not just paste the diff? It makes reviewing a bit hard. Thanks :D
Thanks for the initial review. I'm a SW developer, so git log is the source of truth for me, always :-) While applying the review changes I noticed that release 1.2.4 brought Qt6 support, so I updated the SPEC file accordingly. SPEC: https://stefanb.fedorapeople.org/qmasterpassword.spec SRPM: https://stefanb.fedorapeople.org/qmasterpassword-1.2.4-1.fc40.src.rpm
Is there anything else I can do to nudge this review towards a + flag?
Thanks for the reminder! Here is my final review: Apart from the description error, everything seems fine to me now. See rpmlint output at the end of the review. You probably just have to add a line break in the middle of the sentence. I will approve this package after the description fix :D. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qmasterpassword See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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. 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. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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 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. [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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: qmasterpassword-1.2.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qmasterpassword-debuginfo-1.2.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qmasterpassword-debugsource-1.2.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qmasterpassword-1.2.4-1.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/tmpbwapl_lq')] checks: 31, packages: 4 qmasterpassword.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qMasterPassword qmasterpassword.src: E: description-line-too-long https://spectre.app also contains other compatible software for various platforms, like Android or iOS. qmasterpassword.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long https://spectre.app also contains other compatible software for various platforms, like Android or iOS. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qmasterpassword-debuginfo-1.2.4-1.fc40.x86_64.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/tmppp0d4gvs')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 3 qmasterpassword.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qMasterPassword qmasterpassword.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long https://spectre.app also contains other compatible software for various platforms, like Android or iOS. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bkueng/qMasterPassword/archive/v1.2.4/qMasterPassword-v1.2.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c7c80e88f52903c7055d016da151a1f1afa9ebe07f97798139040c807b9da250 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c7c80e88f52903c7055d016da151a1f1afa9ebe07f97798139040c807b9da250 Requires -------- qmasterpassword (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.5)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXtst.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libscrypt.so.0()(64bit) libscrypt.so.0(libscrypt)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qmasterpassword-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qmasterpassword-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- qmasterpassword: application() application(qMasterPassword.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(qMasterPassword.appdata.xml) qmasterpassword qmasterpassword(x86-64) qmasterpassword-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qmasterpassword-debuginfo qmasterpassword-debuginfo(x86-64) qmasterpassword-debugsource: qmasterpassword-debugsource qmasterpassword-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name qmasterpassword --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, Python, PHP, Haskell, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review. * fixed the rpmlint error in the package description. * upstream has merged my Qt6 fix, therefore I replaced my hand-crafted patch file with a patch generated from git history. I made sure to check all .spec/.rpm files with rpmlint and got 0 errors. SPEC: https://stefanb.fedorapeople.org/qmasterpassword.spec SRPM: https://stefanb.fedorapeople.org/qmasterpassword-1.2.4-1.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6495604 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241780-qmasterpassword/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06495604-qmasterpassword/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.
Looks good now for me. APPROVED
FEDORA-2023-32ed6323a1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-32ed6323a1
FEDORA-2023-c37400fd4d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c37400fd4d
FEDORA-2023-c37400fd4d has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c37400fd4d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c37400fd4d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-32ed6323a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-32ed6323a1` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-32ed6323a1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-32ed6323a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-c37400fd4d has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.