Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/dymo-cups-drivers/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09095628-dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx/dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/dymo-cups-drivers/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09095628-dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx/dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: This package contains DYMO LabelWriter 5xx series drivers for CUPS. For LabelWrtier 4xx and 3xx series drivers, please use the older dymo-cups-drivers package. Fedora Account System Username: kni Rpmlint: >$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm >============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ >rpmlint: 2.7.0 >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: 4 > > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s NOTES: This is a different source tarball from the existing dymo-cups-drivers package, which I maintain. They do not conflict with each other. Both packages can be installed simultaneously.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9100964 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2369164-dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09100964-dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx/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.
I will take this review. If you have time and don't mind a python review, I could use a review of bug 2391549.
Thanks, Jerry. Ill review your request after i return from vacation in two weekends.
Catch you on vacation, did I? Well then, I won't expect a reply to this review for a couple of weeks either. Enjoy your vacation! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - There is a misspelled word on the 2nd line of %description: LabelWrtier - Is "Requires: cups" really needed? A dependency on cups-libs is automatically generated, and cups-libs Requires cups-filesystem, which owns all of the directories where files are installed. What is in the cups package, but not in cups-libs or cups-filesystem, that this package needs? - Is "BuildRequires: python3-cups" needed? It doesn't seem to be used in the build. - Since the 2.0.0.0 version number was added 2 years ago and there have been commits since, I would classify this as a postrelease version. In that case, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots applies. Please modify the Version field to contain snapshot information after a ^ as described. ### Everything below here is a suggestion. Ignore anything you don't like. ### - Remove the line in the spec file that reads: # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2+ - review is highly recommended. I examined the tarball and agree that GPL-2.0-or-later is correct. - LICENSE and COPYING are the same file, modulo some spacing changes. We don't need both of them installed. They also contain obsolete FSF addresses. Please ask upstream to refresh the license text from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. Ah, wait, I see that you have a patch to update FSF addresses. The FSF itself now prefers the use of web addresses instead of street addresses, precisely because they keep moving. See the license link just above. - Consider using %autorelease and %autochangelog. - Source and Patch numbers are no longer needed if they aren't referenced by number later in the spec; i.e., you can write "Source:" instead of "Source0:", and "Patch:" for every patch. This helps with adding and removing patches from a series; you don't have to renumber the other patches. - "BuildRequires: sed" is not necessary, since sed is in the @buildsys-build group; i.e., it is installed for every build. - Likewise, "BuildRequires: glibc-headers" is not necessary, since gcc depends on it. - Consider adding "VCS: git:%{url}.git" below the URL field. The VCS field tells users how to check out the source code. See "Informative package tags" at https://rpm.org/docs/6.0.x/manual/tags.html. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]". 59 files have unknown license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/cups, /usr/lib/cups/filter, /usr/share/cups/model, /usr/share/cups This is okay, because the package Requires: cups, which Requires: cups-filesystem, which owns these directories. [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: 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 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 831 bytes in 3 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. There is one more commit beyond the packaged one, but I think it doesn't matter for the target driver. [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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp3079y8ba')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-debuginfo-2.0.0.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpp11zwqdz')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 17 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dymosoftware/Drivers/archive/795a815363a4401a30a1c0ef94f3381186172843.tar.gz#/Drivers-795a815363a4401a30a1c0ef94f3381186172843.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0c19ff7b763bb23c992bc76897d0053f26b42dfd953d33aedd6f59fd8e9591b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0c19ff7b763bb23c992bc76897d0053f26b42dfd953d33aedd6f59fd8e9591b Requires -------- dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cups libc.so.6()(64bit) libcups.so.2()(64bit) libcupsimage.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx: dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369164 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, PHP, fonts, Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I am a bit surprised rpmlint didn't flag that misspelling. I'll fix the other requires and buildrequires. At some point long time ago, one did have to explicitly pull in cups as a runtime requirement. Cups package has the frontend to the print system, but I see the dependency is cups-libs-> cups-filesystem -> cups, so were are good. I need to double check this same dependency tree exists in el9. Regarding the package version number, I agree the Fedora packaging documentation does indeed instruct the packager to embed the git commit in the package version. Indeed, that is exactly what I am doing for other packages. However, the packaging documentation assumes upstream is using the upstream github site for version control. In this case, upstream is using github simply as a dropbox and nothing more. I wish they were using dropbox, because that would make the package version a non-issue. Here is the current folder tree: LW4xx Linux -> despite its name this folder contains windows driver in a zip file LW5xx_245 -> these are zipped up windows drivers LW5xx_Linux -> Source files we can use. Has not been modified since it was uploaded to github 2 years ago When upstream has a new "release" they delete one of the these folders and replace it with a new folder. Historically over the years, the only times Dymo has modified the Linux drivers was after new printer models have been released. This is why you see all those patches in the specfile. If they do modify the Linux src, then the version would get bumped in the bundled configure.ac. One can also see that Dymo has not given a single response to any of the issues on their github site. They aren't paying attention to feedback from the community. With this in mind, I don't think it is beneficial to set the version to 2.0.0.0-1.20250513git795a815. The implication in that version string is the package contains modifications to the original 2.0.0.0 release, which in this case it does not. I can do it anyway, just to satisfy our packaging documentation, but I don't think it is helpful. Note that I am not a fan of the autochangelog macro. I absolutely don't want every single commit to automatically show as a new changelog entry.
I tried twice previously to follow up with this when work got in the way. Let's try the third time.... I did some testing with mock and the runtime requirement for cups really is needed. Without the cups requirement, the package installs but there is no good way to add a printer to the system without the cups frontend. Realistically, will this package ever get installed on a machine that does not already have cups package installed? Probably not, but I'd prefer to keep the requirement in there for completeness. I added the python3-cups buildrequires to the original dymo-cups-drivers in 2019, no doubt to solve some kind of build problem, but I can't for life of me determine why. This project does not use python at all. This buildrequirement has been removed. I made a note to revisit dymo-cups-drivers package after this review. Lastly, because the end user is not using github for version control, my argument is this does not qualify as a postrelease. Taken from the documentation linked earlier: > Snapshots (a version taken from the upstream source control system not associated with a release) The version used in this package *IS* associated with the 2.0.0.0 release. Consequently, adding the git commit to the release tag would incorrectly imply this packages has commits newer than the 2.0.0.0 release. I have completed some of the optional changes: - removed COPYING - removed glibc-headers buildrequires I will not make these changes: - add VCS - doesn't apply here since upstream is not using github for version control - autochangelog macro - Never going to use these. - Prefer to keep my sources and patches numbered - Will leave the sed buildrequires. I have been asked to add it in previous packages reviews (from years ago). Today it might not be needed, but all it takes is someone who wants to shrink a buildroot smaller and suddenly we will have to call this out. updated Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/dymo-cups-drivers/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09716005-dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx/dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx.spec Updated URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/dymo-cups-drivers/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09716005-dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx/dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2110468 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9100964 to 9716013
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9716013 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2369164-dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09716013-dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx/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.
Okay, that all makes sense. This package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx
FEDORA-2025-331cd7fa70 (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-331cd7fa70
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d8757eb6bf (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d8757eb6bf
FEDORA-2025-2b22661e12 (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2b22661e12
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b759a81ab4 (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b759a81ab4
FEDORA-2025-5a91fec18e (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5a91fec18e
FEDORA-2025-331cd7fa70 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-331cd7fa70 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-331cd7fa70 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d8757eb6bf has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d8757eb6bf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b759a81ab4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b759a81ab4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-2b22661e12 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-2b22661e12 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2b22661e12 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-5a91fec18e has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-5a91fec18e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5a91fec18e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-331cd7fa70 (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-2b22661e12 (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-d8757eb6bf (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-5a91fec18e (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b759a81ab4 (dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.