Bug 2297700 - Review Request: DisplayCAL - Display calibration and profiling tool focusing on accuracy and versatility
Summary: Review Request: DisplayCAL - Display calibration and profiling tool focusing ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: marcdeop
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-07-13 12:06 UTC by Neal Gompa
Modified: 2024-08-20 01:32 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-08-20 01:32:00 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
marcdeop: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Neal Gompa 2024-07-13 12:06:52 UTC
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/DisplayCAL.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/DisplayCAL-3.9.12-2.fc40.src.rpm

Description:
This utility calibrates and characterizes display devices using one
of many supported measurement instruments, with support for
multi-display setups and a variety of available options for advanced
users, such as verification and reporting functionality to evaluate
ICC profiles and display devices, creating video 3D LUTs, as well as
optional CIECAM02 gamut mapping to take into account varying viewing
conditions.


Fedora Account System Username: ngompa

Comment 1 Neal Gompa 2024-07-27 15:59:16 UTC
Update to drop egg info data that causes runtime problems

Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/DisplayCAL.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc40.src.rpm

Comment 2 Steve Cossette 2024-07-27 19:10:43 UTC
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 3787261 bytes in 53 files.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_documentation


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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:
[ ]: 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. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "GNU General Public License,
     Version 3 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License, Version 3", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
     and/or GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General
     Public License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "GNU General Public
     License". 821 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/farchord/Documents/fedora/displaycal/2297700-DisplayCAL/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/DisplayCAL-3.9.12
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps,
     /usr/share/doc/DisplayCAL-3.9.12, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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

Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define lc_name %(echo
     "%{name}" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 11571200 bytes in /usr/share
     DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm:11571200
     See:
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          DisplayCAL-debuginfo-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          DisplayCAL-debugsource-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc41.src.rpm
================================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==================================================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuoqznk9w')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

DisplayCAL.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/DisplayCAL/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/z-displaycal-apply-profiles.desktop
DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary displaycal-eecolor-to-madvr-converter
DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary displaycal-vrml-to-x3d-converter-console
DisplayCAL.spec:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 4)
============================================================================================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 26 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s =============================================================================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: DisplayCAL-debuginfo-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm
================================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==================================================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2su5_aw9')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

============================================================================================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =============================================================================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 32, packages: 3

DisplayCAL.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/DisplayCAL/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/z-displaycal-apply-profiles.desktop
DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary displaycal-eecolor-to-madvr-converter
DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary displaycal-vrml-to-x3d-converter-console
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 23 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
DisplayCAL: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/DisplayCAL/lib64/python313/RealDisplaySizeMM.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/D/DisplayCAL/DisplayCAL-3.9.12.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d0d67e7ebde2967c9613af976bcc6aa5c70d7bb595bef41f40462f750f2b7ff4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d0d67e7ebde2967c9613af976bcc6aa5c70d7bb595bef41f40462f750f2b7ff4


Requires
--------
DisplayCAL (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    SDL2_mixer
    argyllcms
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXinerama.so.1()(64bit)
    libXrandr.so.2()(64bit)
    libXxf86vm.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(build)
    python3.13dist(certifi)
    python3.13dist(dbus-python)
    python3.13dist(distro)
    python3.13dist(numpy)
    python3.13dist(pillow)
    python3.13dist(pychromecast)
    python3.13dist(send2trash)
    python3.13dist(wxpython)
    python3.13dist(zeroconf)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

DisplayCAL-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

DisplayCAL-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
DisplayCAL:
    DisplayCAL
    DisplayCAL(x86-64)
    application()
    application(displaycal-3dlut-maker.desktop)
    application(displaycal-apply-profiles.desktop)
    application(displaycal-curve-viewer.desktop)
    application(displaycal-profile-info.desktop)
    application(displaycal-scripting-client.desktop)
    application(displaycal-synthprofile.desktop)
    application(displaycal-testchart-editor.desktop)
    application(displaycal-vrml-to-x3d-converter.desktop)
    application(displaycal.desktop)
    dispcalGUI
    displaycal
    metainfo()
    metainfo(net.displaycal.DisplayCAL.appdata.xml)
    mimehandler(model/vrml)
    mimehandler(x-world/x-vrml)
    python3.13dist(displaycal)
    python3dist(displaycal)

DisplayCAL-debuginfo:
    DisplayCAL-debuginfo
    DisplayCAL-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)

DisplayCAL-debugsource:
    DisplayCAL-debugsource
    DisplayCAL-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2297700
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 3 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-07-29 02:05:53 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/DisplayCAL

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2024-08-13 22:24:47 UTC
FEDORA-2024-48568271b1 (DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-48568271b1

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2024-08-14 03:12:09 UTC
FEDORA-2024-48568271b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-48568271b1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-48568271b1

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2024-08-19 06:08:41 UTC
FEDORA-2024-48568271b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-48568271b1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-48568271b1

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2024-08-20 01:32:00 UTC
FEDORA-2024-48568271b1 (DisplayCAL-3.9.12-5.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.