Spec URL: https://ernunes.fedorapeople.org/xdriinfo.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/enunes/mesa-demos2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06516773-xdriinfo/xdriinfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: X application to query configuration information of DRI drivers Fedora Account System Username: ernunes Please also see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa-demos/pull-request/6 for more context. As mentioned there, xdriinfo has been built as part of mesa-demos, but it was probably a mistake that it was done in the first place, and now it is starting to get in the way of that package. My proposal is to fork it to a separate package (hence this new package request). This initial submission intends to just add xdriinfo exactly as it has been with mesa-demos until now, to bootstrap things into a known state. I plan to work on bringing it up to the latest upstream too and reviewing the need for that carried downstream patch after its initial inclusion. Also appreciate feedback/ack on the Recommends/Conflicts usage.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6516907 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243260-xdriinfo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06516907-xdriinfo/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.
Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/enunes/mesa-demos2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06516962-xdriinfo/xdriinfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.src.rpm Updated the spec Conflict with glx-utils (mesa-demos subpackage) and its current release to conflict with. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/enunes/mesa-demos2/build/6516962/
Created attachment 1993499 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6516907 to 6517029
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6517029 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243260-xdriinfo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06517029-xdriinfo/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.
Mind that I'm not yet sponsored, so I won't be able to approve yet. Since this is a more complex request, I also haven't assigned myself to it, so others can see it open. Some comments: - Have you tried building mesa-demos with the newest version? The glvnd patch has already been included upstream since 1.0.6. [1] so it would be nicer to ship the most recent version without the downstream patch. There have also been very few commits since 1.0.4, and they do not seem very breaking to me, judging by their commit messages. - The usage of Conflicts seems in line with guidelines to me. - I would use the %{_mandir} macro instead of %{_datadir}/man. [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/xdriinfo/-/commit/6273d9dacbf165331c21bcda5a8945c8931d87b8
(In reply to Pavol Zacik from comment #5) > - Have you tried building mesa-demos with the newest version? The glvnd > patch has already been included upstream > since 1.0.6. [1] so it would be nicer to ship the most recent version > without the downstream patch. > There have also been very few commits since 1.0.4, and they do not seem > very breaking to me, judging by their > commit messages. I did not spend much time trying to do that and figure out about the version bump so far. As I mentioned in comment #0, my proposal is to solve the package split first by having it exactly as it was on mesa-demos as a reference starting point and then solve the version bump and downstream patch cleanup in a followup commit. > - I would use the %{_mandir} macro instead of %{_datadir}/man. Makes sense, I will update that. Thank you for the review.
> I did not spend much time trying to do that and figure out about the version bump so far. As I mentioned in comment #0, my proposal is to solve the package split first by having it exactly as it was on mesa-demos as a reference starting point and then solve the version bump and downstream patch cleanup in a followup commit. OK, that sounds legit. Some more issues/comments: - I would add %doc to %files with at least ChangeLog and README. - The Source link should use at least the %version macro instead of the hardcoded version. That way, you won't need to update it with the new version. - Once you update the package to the newest version, you can also include signature verification into %prep [1]; the upstream releases signatures since version 1.0.5 (look for xdriinfo-1.0.5.tar.gz.sig at [2]). [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures [2] https://www.x.org/archive/individual/app/ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: no use of %version in Source. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. The conflict is well justified. [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. [!]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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: [-]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: justified by the packager. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: missing link or justification. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: the package does not contain any test. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: xdriinfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm xdriinfo-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm xdriinfo-debugsource-1.0.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm xdriinfo-1.0.4-1.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/tmprmiifun4')] checks: 31, packages: 4 ==================================================================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==================================================================================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xdriinfo-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.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/tmp7_z432uz')] 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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/xdriinfo-1.0.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 35c6e43d3b68ef5d93d013b4517014fb890bad96b2c801abf4f607927a94cb1c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35c6e43d3b68ef5d93d013b4517014fb890bad96b2c801abf4f607927a94cb1c Requires -------- xdriinfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xdriinfo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xdriinfo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- xdriinfo: xdriinfo xdriinfo(x86-64) xdriinfo-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) xdriinfo-debuginfo xdriinfo-debuginfo(x86-64) xdriinfo-debugsource: xdriinfo-debugsource xdriinfo-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/pavol/fedora/2243260-xdriinfo/srpm/xdriinfo.spec 2023-10-18 11:24:09.866422274 +0200 +++ /home/pavol/fedora/2243260-xdriinfo/srpm-unpacked/xdriinfo.spec 2023-10-11 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -35,5 +35,5 @@ %license COPYING %{_bindir}/xdriinfo -%{_mandir}/man1/xdriinfo.1* +%{_datadir}/man/man1/xdriinfo.1* %changelog Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2243260 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java, R, fonts, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
One more thing: I would add a comment to the patch, explaining the situation (i.e, that it has been included in a newer version) [1]. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
(In reply to Pavol Zacik from comment #7) > - I would add %doc to %files with at least ChangeLog and README. Fixed this in the latest spec. > - The Source link should use at least the %version macro instead of the > hardcoded version. That way, you won't need to update it with the new > version. Fixed in the latest spec. > - Once you update the package to the newest version, you can also include > signature verification into %prep [1]; the upstream releases signatures > since version 1.0.5 (look for xdriinfo-1.0.5.tar.gz.sig at [2]). Thanks for the note, I will keep that in mind for the followup bump. > One more thing: I would add a comment to the patch, explaining the situation > (i.e, that it has been included in a newer version) [1]. Also fixed in the latest spec. Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/enunes/mesa-demos2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06543797-xdriinfo/xdriinfo-1.0.4-1.fc40.src.rpm https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/enunes/mesa-demos2/build/6543797/ Thanks for the review
Created attachment 1994435 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6517029 to 6543839
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6543839 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2243260-xdriinfo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06543839-xdriinfo/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 the fixes, approving.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xdriinfo
FEDORA-2023-4a71d16a94 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4a71d16a94
FEDORA-2023-4a71d16a94 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.