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 1881381 - Review Request: dtkgui - Deepin dtkgui
Summary: Review Request: dtkgui - Deepin dtkgui
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andy Mender
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: DeepinDEPackageReview 1827715
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-09-22 10:31 UTC by Robin Lee
Modified: 2020-12-01 10:41 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: dtkgui-5.2.2.18-1.fc34
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-12-01 10:41:46 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
andymenderunix: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robin Lee 2020-09-22 10:31:20 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-packit-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01680909-dtkgui/dtkgui.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-packit-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01680909-dtkgui/dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.src.rpm
Description: Dtkgui is the GUI module for DDE look and feel.
Fedora Account System Username: cheeselee

This package requires dtkcore in side tag f34-build-side-30369 to build.

Comment 1 Andy Mender 2020-09-22 20:00:50 UTC
Koji build from mentioned side tag: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52041656

> Name:           dtkgui
> Version: 5.2.2.15
> Release:        1%{?dist}
> Summary:        Deepin dtkgui
> License:        LGPLv3+
> URL:            https://github.com/linuxdeepin/dtkgui

Could you align the Version field like the other fields?

> # no-op since Fedora 28
> %ldconfig_scriptlets

This can/should be removed per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_linker_configuration_files

> %changelog
> * Thu Jun 09 2020 uoser <uoser> - 5.2.2.1-1
> - Update to 5.2.2.1

The %changelog entry is incorrect. June 9th was a Tuesday.

Full review below:

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- 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/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui/diff.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[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", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3
     or later)". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/dtk5
     Review: Which packages provides this directory? dtkcore?
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d,
     /usr/libexec/dtk5, /etc/dbus-1
     Review: As above. Where applicable, either add missing Requires 
     or make your package own the directories.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
     Review: yes, but see earlier comment.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
     Review: Should deepin-gui-settings have a desktop file?
[x]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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 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 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]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.6 starting (python version = 3.8.5)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.6
INFO: Mock Version: 2.6
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-debuginfo-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-devel-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-debugsource-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-debuginfo-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-devel-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/dtkgui/dtkgui-debugsource-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          dtkgui-devel-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          dtkgui-debuginfo-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          dtkgui-debugsource-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          dtkgui-5.2.2.15-1.fc34.src.rpm
dtkgui.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Deepin -> Dee pin, Dee-pin, Deepen
dtkgui.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C dtkgui
dtkgui.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.2.2.1-1 ['5.2.2.15-1.fc34', '5.2.2.15-1']
dtkgui.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/com.deepin.dtk.FileDrag.conf
dtkgui-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dtkgui.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Deepin -> Dee pin, Dee-pin, Deepen
dtkgui.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C dtkgui
dtkgui.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Jun 09 2020 uoser <uoser> - 5.2.2.1-1
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/linuxdeepin/dtkgui/archive/5.2.2.15/dtkgui-5.2.2.15.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 59d65f9596077b8c5f3bbd603797197dab7b6b6b331ba197e6a060fd5301211d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f6bccc6807a15525ba9bebc308c2f7ead8e4aa11864fd7a67fd66bf954b61de
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
dtkgui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15.1_PRIVATE_API)(64bit)
    libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5.15.1_PRIVATE_API)(64bit)
    libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdtkcore.so.5()(64bit)
    libdtkgui.so.5()(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)
    qt5-qtbase(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

dtkgui-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    dtkcore-devel(x86-64)
    dtkgui(x86-64)
    libdtkgui.so.5()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(dtkcore)

dtkgui-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

dtkgui-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
dtkgui:
    dtkgui
    dtkgui(x86-64)
    libdtkgui.so.5()(64bit)

dtkgui-devel:
    cmake(DtkGui)
    cmake(dtkgui)
    dtkgui-devel
    dtkgui-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(dtkgui)

dtkgui-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    dtkgui-debuginfo
    dtkgui-debuginfo(x86-64)

dtkgui-debugsource:
    dtkgui-debugsource
    dtkgui-debugsource(x86-64)

Comment 2 Robin Lee 2020-09-23 02:29:07 UTC
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-packit-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01681792-dtkgui/dtkgui.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-packit-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01681792-dtkgui/dtkgui-5.2.2.15-2.fc34.src.rpm

(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> Koji build from mentioned side tag:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52041656
> 
> > Name:           dtkgui
> > Version: 5.2.2.15
> > Release:        1%{?dist}
> > Summary:        Deepin dtkgui
> > License:        LGPLv3+
> > URL:            https://github.com/linuxdeepin/dtkgui
> 
> Could you align the Version field like the other fields?
Fixed.
> 
> > # no-op since Fedora 28
> > %ldconfig_scriptlets
> 
> This can/should be removed per
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/
> #_linker_configuration_files
Removed.
> 
> > %changelog
> > * Thu Jun 09 2020 uoser <uoser> - 5.2.2.1-1
> > - Update to 5.2.2.1
> 
> The %changelog entry is incorrect. June 9th was a Tuesday.
Fixed.
> 
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>      Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/dtk5
>      Review: Which packages provides this directory? dtkcore?
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d,
>      /usr/libexec/dtk5, /etc/dbus-1
>      Review: As above. Where applicable, either add missing Requires 
>      or make your package own the directories.
Will let dtkcore own /usr/libexec/dtk5.

> ===== EXTRA items =====
> 
> Generic:
> [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>      Note: Mock build failed
>      See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>      guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
Only installable with dtkcore from the side tag.
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/linuxdeepin/dtkgui/archive/5.2.2.15/dtkgui-5.2.2.15.tar.
> gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> 59d65f9596077b8c5f3bbd603797197dab7b6b6b331ba197e6a060fd5301211d
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> 7f6bccc6807a15525ba9bebc308c2f7ead8e4aa11864fd7a67fd66bf954b61de
> diff -r also reports differences
Re-downloaded.

Comment 3 Andy Mender 2020-09-23 19:41:10 UTC
Koji build for updated SPEC/SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52107534

I re-ran fedora-review. Looks good. Source checksums match now as well:
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/linuxdeepin/dtkgui/archive/5.2.2.15/dtkgui-5.2.2.15.tar.gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7f6bccc6807a15525ba9bebc308c2f7ead8e4aa11864fd7a67fd66bf954b61de
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f6bccc6807a15525ba9bebc308c2f7ead8e4aa11864fd7a67fd66bf954b61de

Package approved!

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-09-24 13:15:55 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dtkgui

Comment 5 Andy Mender 2020-11-24 20:26:40 UTC
I see the package hasn't been imported yet. Need any help with it?

Comment 6 Robin Lee 2020-11-25 01:02:04 UTC
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #5)
> I see the package hasn't been imported yet. Need any help with it?

The package has been built in a side tag. It will be pushed with the whole new DDE packages.

Comment 7 Andy Mender 2020-11-25 16:45:08 UTC
Got it! Thanks for the swift reply!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.