Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seer/ Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/epel-9-x86_64/09459319-seer/seer.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/epel-9-x86_64/09459319-seer/seer-2.5-1.el9.src.rpm Description: a gui frontend to gdb for Linux utilizing QT Fedora Account System Username: walkerever Reproducible: Always update: Note, this is my 1st package for Fedora so I need a sponsor (https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/735). Thanks~
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9459538 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390529-seer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09459538-seer/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, Submitted a new copr build with: - Added a simple manpage, - Replaced "frontend" with "front-end" - Add desktop-file-validate in new %check section. new spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/epel-10-x86_64/09459667-seer/seer.spec new srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/epel-9-x86_64/09459661-seer/seer-2.5-1.el9.src.rpm new copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seer/build/9459667/ --- there's no doc subpackage -- I'll talk to author but this seems warning only for now.
Created attachment 2104551 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9459538 to 9459669
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9459669 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390529-seer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09459669-seer/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.
new spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/epel-10-x86_64/09459667-seer/seer.spec new srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/epel-9-x86_64/09459751-seer/seer-2.5-1.el9.src.rpm new copr build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/epel-9-x86_64/09459751-seer/seer.spec
Created attachment 2104556 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9459669 to 9459753
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9459753 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390529-seer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09459753-seer/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.
new build with minor fix, copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seer/build/9460038/ spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/alma+epel-10-x86_64_v2/09460038-seer/seer.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/alma+epel-10-x86_64_v2/09460038-seer/seer-2.5-1.el10.src.rpm
Created attachment 2104557 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9459753 to 9460043
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9460043 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390529-seer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09460043-seer/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 got to know I can run the check first locally -- will try. happy learning the process. Reaching author about adding the license to each source files or by a patch. will update.
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09461386-seer/seer.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09461386-seer/seer-2.5-1.fc44.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: 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 Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License". 770 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/seer/2390529-seer/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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 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. [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. [ ]: 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. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: seer-2.5-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm seer-2.5-1.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/tmpfyyibeds')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: seer-debuginfo-2.5-1.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/tmp15bppvtw')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 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, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/epasveer/seer/archive/refs/tags/v2.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06f8eac1ab26149e6919c3bb021c1052f4da42c17b540d87db944682a81071b3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06f8eac1ab26149e6919c3bb021c1052f4da42c17b540d87db944682a81071b3 Requires -------- seer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gdb hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Charts.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Charts.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.9)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6()(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(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_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- seer: application() application(seer.desktop) seer seer(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2390529 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Java, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Initial comments: a) Please replace Source0: https://github.com/epasveer/seer/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz by Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/seer-%{version}.tar.gz see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags b) Please add an appdata file, consider adding it upstream as well: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ c) Is it possible to run some of the tests? See: https://github.com/epasveer/seer/wiki/Starting-Seer May need to use xvfb-run though upstream may have some other way of including these in CI. d) Some files are under other licenses: BSD 2-Clause License -------------------- seer-2.5-build/seer-2.5/src/QProcessInfo.cpp GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later ----------------------------------------------- seer-2.5-build/seer-2.5/src/QHistoryLineEdit.cpp seer-2.5-build/seer-2.5/src/QHistoryLineEdit.h MIT License ----------- seer-2.5-build/seer-2.5/src/resources/qdarkstyle/ABOUT.md CC 3.0, CC 4.0 for icon https://github.com/epasveer/seer/tree/main/src/resources
sure, will work on the changes
new build with minor fix, a) Source0 fixed. b) appdata added - poor man's version. Reached author, may update later if there's a better version provided. c) poorman's version tests added. d) licenses updated: 1. License term -- now a combination of all licenses included. 2. all source files now have license comment with a patch from author's latest commit. 3. only UNKNOWNS are some png files as ack'ed by author that have default project license which is GPLv3+. copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seer/build/9515701/ spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/fedora-42-x86_64/09515701-seer/seer.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/fedora-42-x86_64/09515701-seer/seer-2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2105586 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9460043 to 9515709
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9515709 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390529-seer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09515709-seer/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0-or-later AND LGPLv3+ AND BSD-2-Clause AND MIT AND CC-BY-3.0 AND CC-BY-4.0'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Fixed "License" copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yxwang5db2/seer/build/9515840/ spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/fedora-43-x86_64/09515840-seer/seer.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yxwang5db2/seer/fedora-43-x86_64/09515840-seer/seer-2.5-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2105587 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9515709 to 9515849
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9515849 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390529-seer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09515849-seer/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.
there're a few things I'm confused: 1. ``` seer.src: W: strange-permission add_copyrights_to_source_files.patch 666 seer.src: W: strange-permission seer-2.5.tar.gz 666 seer.src: W: strange-permission seer.metainfo.xml 666 seer.src: W: strange-permission seer.spec 666 seer.src: W: strange-permission seergdb.1 666 ``` they are 644 in repo and source rpms. 2. having no idea about below. seer pkg always exists while debuginfo may not exist on some arch. ``` Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "seer-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "seer". There are no files to process nor additional ```
Talked with Ernie, Author of Seer, we want to name the package as "seergdb" than just "seer". I'll recreate the review request and have this closed.
new request for "seergdb" created as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2392647. Thanks Benson for reviewing and I've added you to the new request.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2392647 ***