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 1843279 - Review Request: baresip - Modular SIP user-agent with audio and video support
Summary: Review Request: baresip - Modular SIP user-agent with audio and video support
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1843264 1843268
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-06-03 00:18 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2020-07-17 01:27 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-07-06 01:02:29 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert Scheck 2020-06-03 00:18:50 UTC
Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/baresip.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/baresip-0.6.6-1.src.rpm
Description: A modular SIP user-agent with support for audio and video, and many IETF standards such as SIP, RTP, STUN, TURN, and ICE for both, IPv4 and IPv6.
Additional modules provide support for audio codecs like G.711, G.722, G.726, GSM, L16, MPA, and Opus, audio drivers like ALSA, GStreamer, JACK Audio Connection Kit, Portaudio, and PulseAudio, video codecs like VP8 or VP9, video sources like Video4Linux and X11 grabber, video outputs like SDL2 or X11, NAT traversal via STUN, TURN, ICE, NATBD, and NAT-PMP, media encryption via SRTP or DTLS-SRTP, management features like embedded web-server with HTTP interface, command-line console and interface, and MQTT.
Fedora Account System Username: robert

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-06-26 14:09:41 UTC
 - Add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed.

 - Convert this to UTF-8 in %prep:

baresip.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/baresip/ChangeLog



Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.




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]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 466 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/baresip/review-baresip/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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 5 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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: 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: baresip-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-alsa-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-cairo-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-g722-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-g726-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-gsm-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-gst-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-gst_video-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-gtk-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-jack-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-mpa-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-mqtt-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-opus-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-plc-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-portaudio-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-pulse-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-rst-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-sdl-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-sndfile-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-speex_pp-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-vp8-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-vp9-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-v4l2-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-x11-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-x11grab-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-debuginfo-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-debugsource-0.6.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          baresip-0.6.6-1.fc33.src.rpm
baresip.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/fakevideo.so
baresip.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/g711.so
baresip.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/l16.so
baresip.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/stun.so
baresip.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/vidbridge.so
baresip.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/baresip/ChangeLog
baresip.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary baresip
baresip-alsa.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-cairo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-g722.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/g722.so
baresip-g722.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-g726.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/g726.so
baresip-g726.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-gsm.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/gsm.so
baresip-gsm.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-gst.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-gst_video.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-gtk.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-jack.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-mpa.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-mqtt.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-opus.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-plc.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/baresip/modules/plc.so
baresip-plc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-portaudio.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-pulse.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-rst.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-sdl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-sndfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsndfile -> landfill
baresip-sndfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsndfile -> landfill
baresip-sndfile.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-speex_pp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pre -> per, ore, pee
baresip-speex_pp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libspeexdsp 
baresip-speex_pp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
baresip-speex_pp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libspeexdsp 
baresip-speex_pp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-vp8.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-vp9.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-v4l2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-x11.x86_64: W: no-documentation
baresip-x11grab.x86_64: W: no-documentation
28 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 32 warnings.

Comment 2 Robert Scheck 2020-06-28 18:17:05 UTC
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - Add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed.

Will do so.

>  - Convert this to UTF-8 in %prep:
> 
> baresip.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/baresip/ChangeLog

Will do so; proposed to upstream as well: https://github.com/baresip/baresip/pull/1026

> Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.

Thank you very much for the package review!

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-06-29 14:09:31 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/baresip

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2020-07-01 21:09:05 UTC
FEDORA-2020-10aa8b2ff4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10aa8b2ff4

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2020-07-01 21:10:27 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7bde0cb4f9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7bde0cb4f9

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2020-07-01 21:11:47 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b24e67db35 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b24e67db35

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-07-01 21:12:13 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bc4661dcf has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bc4661dcf

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2020-07-02 01:12:31 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7bde0cb4f9 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7bde0cb4f9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7bde0cb4f9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2020-07-02 01:16:09 UTC
FEDORA-2020-10aa8b2ff4 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-10aa8b2ff4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10aa8b2ff4

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2020-07-02 01:28:03 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b24e67db35 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b24e67db35

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2020-07-02 01:28:47 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bc4661dcf has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bc4661dcf

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2020-07-06 01:02:29 UTC
FEDORA-2020-10aa8b2ff4 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2020-07-10 01:01:45 UTC
FEDORA-2020-7bde0cb4f9 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2020-07-17 01:17:22 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b24e67db35 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2020-07-17 01:27:53 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3bc4661dcf has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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.