https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091



--- Comment #4 from Erich Eickmeyer <er...@ericheickmeyer.com> ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
> Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53166967
> 
> It fails on armv7hl and i686. Please, have a look at the logs.
> 

Oops, forgot to check for build failures in my copr builds. In fact, it's not
meant to build on either of those architectures, so I'll have to exclude those
archs.

> > License:        GPLv2
> 
> licensecheck found a file with the MIT license. If it's not a mistake, that
> should be included in the License field with a comment above mentioning that
> only this file has a different license.
> 
> Expat License
> -------------
> jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py

Looks like Expat, not MIT. They're two different licenses (ran into something
like this in my Ubuntu packages where it was Expat but I said MIT).

> 
> > BuildRequires:  autoconf
> > BuildRequires:  automake
> > BuildRequires:  python3-gobject-devel
> > BuildRequires:  python3-cairo-devel
> > BuildRequires:  python3-devel
> > BuildRequires:  jack-audio-connection-kit-devel
> > BuildRequires:  glib2-devel
> > Requires:       jack-audio-connection-kit
> > Requires:       python3-gobject
> > Requires:       python3
> > Requires:       python3-cairo
> 
> Python dependencies should be declared following the format
> "python3dist(foo)".

Ran into this when I tried that:

No matching package to install: 'python3dist(cairo)'
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(gobject)'

So, considering every other package I've done with python dependencies, this is
the first time I've run into that requirement. Apparently it doesn't work.

> > %changelog
> > * Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer <er...@ericheickmeyer.com>
> > - New package for Fedora
> 
> %changelog entries should contain the version and release like so:
> > * Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer <er...@ericheickmeyer.com> - 13-1

Yep, minor oversight. Fixed.

> 
> There is extra stuff covered in the main review body:
> 
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
>   BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
>   Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
> - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
>   Note: jack-mixer : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
> - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
>   file-validate if there is such a file.
> 
> 
> ===== MUST items =====
> 
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [ ]: 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.
>      Review: are these internal to the package?

They should indeed be internal to the package. This is not intended as a
development library but as a standalone application.

> [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [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.
> [!]: 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",
>      "GPL (v2)", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)",
>      "Expat License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>      licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/jack-mixer/jack-
>      mixer/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners:
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
>      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps
>      Review: jack-mixer should have a Requires on hicolor-icon-theme

Fixed.

> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [?]: 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.
> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>      Review: mentioned before.
> [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.
> [-]: 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.
> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>      Review: issues mentioned above.
> [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 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
> 
> ===== SHOULD items =====
> 
> Generic:
> [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>      Review: It does on x86_64
> [-]: 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.
> [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>      translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.
>      Review: fails on 2 architectures mentioned before.
> [-]: %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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [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: jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
>           jack-mixer-debuginfo-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
>           jack-mixer-debugsource-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
>           jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.src.rpm
> jack-mixer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US faders -> fades,
> fakers, waders
> jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
> jack-mixer.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP
> Error 404: Not Found
> jack-mixer.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/share/jack_mixer/nsmclient.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
> jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mix_box
> jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mixer
> jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mixer.py
> jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
> jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found
> jack-mixer-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
> jack-mixer-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found
> jack-mixer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US faders -> fades,
> fakers, waders
> jack-mixer.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
> jack-mixer.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP
> Error 404: Not Found
> jack-mixer.src:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in
> %{_prefix}/lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages/*
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (debuginfo)
> -------------------
> Checking: jack-mixer-debuginfo-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
> jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
> jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer-debuginfo
> (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer
> (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer-debugsource
> 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> Unversioned so-files
> --------------------
> jack-mixer: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.so
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/jack-mixer/jack_mixer/archive/release-13/jack-mixer-13.
> tar.gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> 3ff60d6739fbbfeb7fd7dee06c6dc2f03fd0570e250f0fd0f7564fcf676f085b
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> 3ff60d6739fbbfeb7fd7dee06c6dc2f03fd0570e250f0fd0f7564fcf676f085b
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> jack-mixer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     /usr/bin/python3
>     jack-audio-connection-kit
>     libc.so.6()(64bit)
>     libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>     libjack.so.0()(64bit)
>     libm.so.6()(64bit)
>     python(abi)
>     python3
>     python3-cairo
>     python3-gobject
>     rtld(GNU_HASH)
> 
> jack-mixer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> 
> jack-mixer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------
> jack-mixer:
>     application()
>     application(jack_mixer.desktop)
>     jack-mixer
>     jack-mixer(x86-64)
>     libtool(/usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la)
> 
> jack-mixer-debuginfo:
>     debuginfo(build-id)
>     jack-mixer-debuginfo
>     jack-mixer-debuginfo(x86-64)
> 
> jack-mixer-debugsource:
>     jack-mixer-debugsource
>     jack-mixer-debugsource(x86-64)

Rebuilding now.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to