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 2177572 - Review Request: guvcview - GTK+ UVC Viewer and Capturer
Summary: Review Request: guvcview - GTK+ UVC Viewer and Capturer
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Yaakov Selkowitz
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: http://guvcview.sourceforge.net/
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-03-13 02:03 UTC by Neal Gompa
Modified: 2023-03-24 03:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-03-15 00:18:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
yselkowi: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5631336 to 5633582 (deleted)
2023-03-13 21:11 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff

Description Neal Gompa 2023-03-13 02:03:40 UTC
Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/guvcview.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/guvcview-2.0.8-5.fc37.src.rpm

Description:
A simple GTK interface for capturing and viewing video from devices
supported by the Linux UVC driver, although it should also work with
any v4l2 compatible device.

Fedora Account System Username: ngompa

Comment 1 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-03-13 02:19:34 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5631336
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2177572-guvcview/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05631336-guvcview/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Yaakov Selkowitz 2023-03-13 02:57:24 UTC
Package Review
==============

NOTES:
* Does it make sense to carry forward RPMFusion's %changelog?
* Sources are marked GPL-2.0-or-later but COPYING is GPL3 (probably due to autotools)
* WRT files-duplicate warning, the icon copying (and hence the use of hicolor-icon-theme and %_datadir/icons) could be removed from the RPM build and handled solely in the flatpak build with cleanup-commands.
* Use of AC_PROG_LIBTOOL doesn't bother me.


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]: 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.
[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.
[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", "FSF All Permissive License",
     "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)
     GNU General Public License [generated file]", "GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
     v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License
     [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No
     copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF
     postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License (with
     License Retention) GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General
     Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU
     General Public License, Version 2". 95 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/guvcview/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.
[x]: 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 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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.
[-]: 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
     guvcview-libs , guvcview-devel
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: guvcview-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          guvcview-libs-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          guvcview-devel-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          guvcview-debuginfo-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          guvcview-debugsource-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          guvcview-2.0.8-5.fc39.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4w4fhl5r')]
checks: 31, packages: 6

guvcview-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
guvcview.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/guvcview/guvcview.png /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/guvcview.png
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: guvcview-debuginfo-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          guvcview-libs-debuginfo-2.0.8-5.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9kkrj_s6')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 6

guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewaudio-2.0.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libasound.so.2
guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewencoder-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libgslcblas.so.0
guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewrender-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libgslcblas.so.0
guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewrender-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libstdc++.so.6
guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewrender-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
guvcview-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgviewv4l2core-2.1.so.2.0.1 /lib64/libz.so.1
guvcview-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
guvcview.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/guvcview/guvcview.png /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/guvcview.png
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings, 6 badness; has taken 1.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/guvcview/guvcview-src-2.0.8.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a21f4e448286666cf27bafef5290cc953a0a1796b752e5bbe521266dc1230c81
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a21f4e448286666cf27bafef5290cc953a0a1796b752e5bbe521266dc1230c81


Requires
--------
guvcview (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    guvcview-libs(x86-64)
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgviewaudio-2.0.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewencoder-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewrender-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewv4l2core-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

guvcview-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libasound.so.2()(64bit)
    libavcodec.so.59()(64bit)
    libavcodec.so.59(LIBAVCODEC_59)(64bit)
    libavutil.so.57()(64bit)
    libavutil.so.57(LIBAVUTIL_57)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgsl.so.27()(64bit)
    libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit)
    libportaudio.so.2()(64bit)
    libpulse.so.0()(64bit)
    libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libudev.so.1()(64bit)
    libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit)
    libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libv4l2.so.0()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

guvcview-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    guvcview-libs(x86-64)
    libgviewaudio-2.0.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewencoder-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewrender-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewv4l2core-2.1.so.2()(64bit)

guvcview-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

guvcview-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
guvcview:
    application()
    application(guvcview.desktop)
    guvcview
    guvcview(x86-64)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(guvcview.appdata.xml)

guvcview-libs:
    guvcview-libs
    guvcview-libs(x86-64)
    libgviewaudio-2.0.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewencoder-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewrender-2.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libgviewv4l2core-2.1.so.2()(64bit)

guvcview-devel:
    guvcview-devel
    guvcview-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libgviewaudio)
    pkgconfig(libgviewencoder)
    pkgconfig(libgviewrender)
    pkgconfig(libgviewv4l2core)

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

guvcview-debugsource:
    guvcview-debugsource
    guvcview-debugsource(x86-64)



AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: guvcview-src-2.0.8/configure.ac:53


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name guvcview --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 3 Neal Gompa 2023-03-13 08:41:52 UTC
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #2)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> NOTES:
> * Does it make sense to carry forward RPMFusion's %changelog?

I didn't completely write this package spec from scratch, so yes, I think so. That's the easy way to ensure attribution is preserved.

> * Sources are marked GPL-2.0-or-later but COPYING is GPL3 (probably due to
> autotools)

I can file a ticket with upstream to put the right COPYING file and drop it from the package for now.

> * WRT files-duplicate warning, the icon copying (and hence the use of
> hicolor-icon-theme and %_datadir/icons) could be removed from the RPM build
> and handled solely in the flatpak build with cleanup-commands.

I'd prefer to leave this alone for the rpm build. I could file a ticket asking them to update their icon handling though.

> * Use of AC_PROG_LIBTOOL doesn't bother me.
> 

Meh.

Comment 4 Neal Gompa 2023-03-13 19:29:47 UTC
I've respun the package with the update wrt license file. Same links as before.

Comment 5 Yaakov Selkowitz 2023-03-13 20:16:09 UTC
According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text, because this is GPL, it seems necessary to add a GPL 2.0 text file as Source1, copy it in during %setup and then %license it; omitting it does not seem to be a valid option in this case.

Comment 6 Neal Gompa 2023-03-13 20:46:08 UTC
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #5)
> According to
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text, because this is GPL, it seems necessary
> to add a GPL 2.0 text file as Source1, copy it in during %setup and then
> %license it; omitting it does not seem to be a valid option in this case.

Done. See updated spec and SRPM at previously mentioned location.

Comment 7 Yaakov Selkowitz 2023-03-13 20:54:54 UTC
[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 8 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-03-13 21:11:06 UTC
Created attachment 1950325 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5631336 to 5633582

Comment 9 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-03-13 21:11:09 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5633582
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2177572-guvcview/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05633582-guvcview/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 10 Yaakov Selkowitz 2023-03-13 23:14:59 UTC
Thanks, package is APPROVED.

Comment 11 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-03-14 03:36:25 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/guvcview

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-03-14 04:10:19 UTC
FEDORA-2023-a5ae23238b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a5ae23238b

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-03-14 04:10:19 UTC
FEDORA-2023-9f383d78bb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9f383d78bb

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2023-03-14 04:10:20 UTC
FEDORA-2023-1d9f75e126 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1d9f75e126

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2023-03-15 00:18:04 UTC
FEDORA-2023-9f383d78bb has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2023-03-15 00:45:45 UTC
FEDORA-2023-a5ae23238b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2023-03-15 01:06:00 UTC
FEDORA-2023-1d9f75e126 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2023-03-15 02:32:38 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1abfe78bd4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1abfe78bd4

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

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2023-03-15 17:17:59 UTC
FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37 Flatpaks. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2023-03-16 00:23:58 UTC
FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 Flatpaks testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f

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

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2023-03-23 01:53:51 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1abfe78bd4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2023-03-24 03:21:34 UTC
FEDORA-FLATPAK-2023-06cc4e071f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 Flatpaks 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.