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 1674530 - Review Request: gradio - Find and listen to internet radio stations
Summary: Review Request: gradio - Find and listen to internet radio stations
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-02-11 15:10 UTC by Artem
Modified: 2019-02-27 01:15 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-02-19 14:02:44 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Artem 2019-02-11 15:10:48 UTC
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gradio.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gradio-7.2-8.fc29.src.rpm
Description: A GTK3 app for finding and listening to internet radio stations.
Fedora Account System Username: atim

Gradio written in Vala lang. Version 8.0 was rewritten in Rust and renamed to Shortwave.

Comment 1 Gergely Gombos 2019-02-13 22:34:19 UTC
I almost posted my unofficial review, then it disappeared :(
This is a nice app!

So the important points:
- A rename may be imminent, but the binary name is still gradio so the package name is OK even if e.g. the URL already contains Shortwave.
- Where you use subdirectories, add all the directories to %files so that everything is owned by the package (e.g. /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32 etc.)
- Builds fine in rawhide mock, runs fine on F29
- Create a macro like %{archivename} for %{appname}-v%{version}
- License is fine as GPLv3 since source files are like LGPLv2+ etc. (all GPLv3 distributable) so it's ok that upstream chose GPLv3 for all files.
- There are .h files in the debugsource file because the source contains a 'libgd' as a build source. Since there is no separate library file built, there is no need for a -devel package where these .h files could go.

Otherwise LGTM, but a more experienced reviewer may be more helpful than me. :)

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-02-17 17:51:58 UTC
 - The Appdata files now go to /usr/share/metainfo, on %{_metainfodir}:

%{_datadir}/appdata/%{filename}.%{name}.appdata.xml


  Patch the install script (data/meson.build) and notify upstream.


 - Add a Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories

 - Please add a comment explaining what the patch is for.

 - Don't mix tabs and spaces, remove the tab line 13

gradio.src:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 13)





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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or
     later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "*No
     copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)", "*No copyright*
     GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)". 96 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/gradio/review-gradio/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gradio-
     debuginfo , gradio-debugsource
[?]: 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: gradio-7.2-8.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          gradio-debuginfo-7.2-8.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          gradio-debugsource-7.2-8.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          gradio-7.2-8.fc30.src.rpm
gradio.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gradio
gradio.src:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 13)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Comment 3 Artem 2019-02-17 20:22:19 UTC
@Gergely Gombos, @Robert-André Mauchin, thank you a lot. I fixed everything you said. Please check:

Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gradio.spec
SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gradio-7.2-9.fc29.src.rpm

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-02-17 22:48:51 UTC
Package approved.

Comment 5 Igor Raits 2019-02-18 00:14:52 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gradio

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-02-18 00:54:34 UTC
gradio-7.2-9.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f8e61ef878

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-02-18 00:58:21 UTC
gradio-7.2-9.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4e7c2b55fd

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-02-19 07:07:06 UTC
gradio-7.2-9.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2019-4e7c2b55fd

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-02-19 14:02:44 UTC
gradio-7.2-9.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2019-02-27 01:15:42 UTC
gradio-7.2-9.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, 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.