https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
Bug ID: 1721770 Summary: Review Request: glava - OpenGL audio spectrum visualizer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.analyst@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//glava.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//glava-1.6.3-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: GLava is an OpenGL audio spectrum visualizer primarily used for desktop windows or backgrounds. Displayed to the left is the radial shader module, and a more extensive demonstration can be seen here. Development is active, and reporting issues is encouranged.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35624955
I also changed the description abit to remove references to online images:
GLava is an OpenGL audio spectrum visualizer primarily used for desktop windows or backgrounds. Multiple visualization styles are provided and new ones may be written in GLSL. Development is active, and reporting issues is encouraged.
See https://github.com/wacossusca34/glava/wiki for more documentation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Can't glad be unbundled?
Package approved.
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]: 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", "Expat License", "Khronos License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/glava/review-glava/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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: glava-1.6.3-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm glava-debuginfo-1.6.3-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm glava-debugsource-1.6.3-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm glava-1.6.3-1.fc31.src.rpm glava.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/glava glava.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glava 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- It's not bundled; `make glad` generates the files using python3-glad.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glava
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-66c282c927 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-66c282c927
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-c873a4b6e6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c873a4b6e6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- glava-1.6.3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-c873a4b6e6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- glava-1.6.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-66c282c927
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-06-25 01:26:03
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- glava-1.6.3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721770
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- glava-1.6.3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org