Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1294523
Summary: | Review Request: purple-skypeweb - Adds support for Skype to libpurple-based clients | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Vitaly Zaitsev <vitaly> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Simone Caronni <negativo17> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | negativo17, ol+redhat, package-review, thib |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | negativo17:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-07-03 12:23:27 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Vitaly Zaitsev
2015-12-28 18:17:24 UTC
No longer blocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I will sponsor Vitaly. Please remove this lines, they are not needed: > # generating empty configure script > echo '#!/bin/bash' > configure > chmod +x configure > %configure It is not mandatory to have a configure script. You can use the following to pass correct CFLAGS when building: > export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" > %make_build A personal request; can you please add these two lines to the "purple-skypeweb" pacakge? > Provides: skype4pidgin = %{version}-%{release} > Obsoletes: skype4pidgin < %{version}-%{release} I've been packaging all skype4pidgin plugins for years (including libskypeweb) until now, where skypeweb is mature enough. I would like to make the transition transparent to the official Fedora packages for my users: http://negativo17.org/skype-and-skype-pidgin-plugin/ This can be removed in a few months. Please provide again the "Spec URL" and "SRPM URL" lines with the latest changes, fedora-review needs to have them when parsing packages/spec files. > Please remove this lines, they are not needed: Removed. > A personal request; can you please add these two lines to the "purple-skypeweb" pacakge? Added. > Please provide again the "Spec URL" and "SRPM URL" lines with the latest changes, fedora-review needs to have them when parsing packages/spec files. SPEC: https://github.com/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/raw/master/purple-skypeweb.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/fedora-23-x86_64/00340324-purple-skypeweb/purple-skypeweb-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.src.rpm rpmlint check result: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/378023/74464314/ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-skypeweb/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== 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. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple- skypeweb/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/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [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: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: 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: [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pidgin- skypeweb , purple-skypeweb-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: purple-skypeweb-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.x86_64.rpm pidgin-skypeweb-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.noarch.rpm purple-skypeweb-debuginfo-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.x86_64.rpm purple-skypeweb-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.src.rpm purple-skypeweb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplemented -> implemented, supplemented, complemented pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libskypeweb pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: no-documentation purple-skypeweb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: purple-skypeweb-debuginfo-1.1-6.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplemented -> implemented, supplemented, complemented pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libskypeweb pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: no-documentation purple-skypeweb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpurple -> lib purple, lib-purple, purple 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- purple-skypeweb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pidgin-skypeweb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pidgin purple-skypeweb purple-skypeweb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpurple.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- purple-skypeweb-debuginfo: purple-skypeweb-debuginfo purple-skypeweb-debuginfo(x86-64) pidgin-skypeweb: pidgin-skypeweb purple-skypeweb: libskypeweb.so()(64bit) purple-skypeweb purple-skypeweb(x86-64) skype4pidgin Unversioned so-files -------------------- purple-skypeweb: /usr/lib64/purple-2/libskypeweb.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/EionRobb/skype4pidgin/archive/eb0b5000c56c9c264375ab2334c926c9715ee3d0.tar.gz#/skype4pidgin-eb0b500.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa04af47d80c9ac82ede905b6a103dcbf48e0e707c5b5d7111f00e0897a49705 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d96bccd0e2c56acf347ceac7b89d05cea2993505599b3fe915789a23a116e604 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1294523 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple-skypeweb/diff.txt > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL This is ok, the tarball is renamed according to packaging guidelines. > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 This is ok as no longer true, BR can now be excplicitly required. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", > "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Downloads/1294523-purple- > skypeweb/licensecheck.txt This is ok, but please ask upstream to add all proper headers. Otherwise, since this is a subset of the whole (obsolete) skype4pidgin tarball, just package in the tarball only the required folders. You can use this guideline if you want to proceed that way: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype Just remove the "theme" at the end of this line in the files section: %{_datadir}/pixmaps/pidgin/emotes/skype/theme > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. Please add some notes to the patch. I don't see why the code in the patch should be removed, if there is an explanation for it, please add it to the SPEC file. Also, please remove the "%if 0%{?fedora}/%endif" part around Patch0. If I'm downloading the source rpm for some rebuild on (whatever) unreleased distribution (let's say a beta RHEL that has everything included) I won't get the patch file from the Koji build, and I would need to download it from the SCM. It's perfectly acceptable to have patches shipped and just applied conditionally. > pidgin-skypeweb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inplemented -> implemented, supplemented, complemented There's a typo in the comment, 's/inplemented/implemented/g'. Package is almost good to go, just fix the typo, directory ownership and the patch thing! Many thanks for adding the skype4pidgin Obsoletes/Provides. > This is ok, but please ask upstream to add all proper headers. Otherwise, since this is a subset of the whole (obsolete) skype4pidgin tarball, just package in the tarball only the required folders. You can use this guideline if you want to proceed that way: Yes, I'll add script which will repackage tarball. > Just remove the "theme" at the end of this line in the files section: Done. > Please add some notes to the patch. I don't see why the code in the patch should be removed, if there is an explanation for it, please add it to the SPEC file. This patch is no longer needed. > There's a typo in the comment, 's/inplemented/implemented/g'. Fixed. Thanks. New SRPM with latest SPEC and repackaged tarball: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/fedora-23-x86_64/00341853-purple-skypeweb/purple-skypeweb-1.1-8.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.src.rpm Hi Vitaly, this does not really work, as the various tools will complain that the tarball specified in the URL of the spec file does not match the checksum of the tarball that is actually shipped in the src.rpm; prompting you to do something because the tarball has been tampered with. I would personally do something like that: 1- Change source0 to read the following: Source0: %{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.xz 2- Adjust your script to do the checkout and repack as follows (this is an example): #!/bin/sh TARBALL=purple-skypeweb git clone -q https://github.com/EionRobb/skype4pidgin.git cd skype4pidgin COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 --format=%H) SHORTCOMMIT=${COMMIT:0:7} mv skypeweb ../$TARBALL-$COMMIT cd .. tar -cJf $TARBALL-$SHORTCOMMIT.tar.xz $TARBALL-$COMMIT rm -fr skype4pidgin echo commit0 $COMMIT echo Source0 $TARBALL-$SHORTCOMMIT.tar.xz When running, you will get this output, so you can paste the commit id directly in the spec file: $ ./purple-skypeweb-tarball.sh commit0 eb0b5000c56c9c264375ab2334c926c9715ee3d0 Source0 purple-skypeweb-eb0b500.tar.xz This way, the Source0 is only checked locally and you won't have hash mismatches, you have a consistent SPEC file with commits etc., source is reduced and you provide the tarball script. Then updating the package would basically be: 1- Run tarball script 2- Replace the id at the top of the SPEC file 3- Bump the spec file (rpmdev-bumpspec will take care of release, changelog, etc: rpmdev-bumpspec -c "Update to latest sources." purple-skypeweb.spec 4- Upload new sources fedpkg new-sources purple-skypeweb-<shortcommit>.tar.xz 5- Commit all, push and build git commit -a -m "Update to latest sources", git push, fedpkg build Ah, the %autosetup line in the SPEC file would need to be changed as well with the example above (comment #8): %autosetup -n %{name}-%{commit0} Thanks. Replaced script and fixed SPEC due this changes. New SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/purple-skypeweb/fedora-23-x86_64/00342894-purple-skypeweb/purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc23.src.rpm Package approved! Thanks for the quick interactions. Please proceed into asking for SCM access as depicted in the guidelines (point no. 8): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor If you need any assistance on anything, just drop me an email. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/purple-skypeweb Package request has been denied with the reason: Re-requesting. Package request has been denied with the reason: Re-requesting. Package request has been denied with the reason: Re-requesting. purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-984c3b0430 purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-79e860a25c purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-79e860a25c purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-984c3b0430 purple-skypeweb-1.1-9.20160510giteb0b500.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-79e860a25c purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e482d5c765 purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-76f227d32a purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-244b53880a purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-244b53880a purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-76f227d32a purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e482d5c765 purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. purple-skypeweb-1.1-11.20160620git72f0b00.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |