https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
Bug ID: 1887091 Summary: Review Request: jack-mixer - JACK Audio Mixer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: erich@ericheickmeyer.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
Description: JACK Audio mixer
jack_mixer is an audio mixer for JACK with a look similar to its hardware counterparts. Many features are available, here is a short list:
- Mix any number of input channels (mono or stereo). - Control balance and faders with MIDI commands. - Handle session management with LASH. - Create as many outputs as necessary. - Quickly monitor inputs (PFL) and outputs.
Fedora Account System Username: eeickmeyer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |andymenderunix@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |andymenderunix@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #1 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- 1: Remove
BuildRequires: autoconf
$ rpm -q --requires automake |grep auto autoconf >= 2.65
2: You are running configure twice, change
./autogen.sh
to
NOCONFIGURE=1 ./autogen.sh
3: You haven't validated the desktop file
%{_datadir}/applications/jack_mixer.desktop
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_file_ins...
4: Why two %doc?, change
%doc README.md %doc NEWS
to
%doc NEWS README.md
5: Remove
Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit
and
Requires: python3
Autorequires takes care of them
rpm -qp --requires /home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jack-mixer-13-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm |grep libjack.so.0 libjack.so.0()(64bit)
and
$ rpm -qp --requires /home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jack-mixer-13-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm |grep /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/python3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53166967
It fails on armv7hl and i686. Please, have a look at the logs.
License: GPLv2
licensecheck found a file with the MIT license. If it's not a mistake, that should be included in the License field with a comment above mentioning that only this file has a different license.
Expat License ------------- jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py
BuildRequires: autoconf BuildRequires: automake BuildRequires: python3-gobject-devel BuildRequires: python3-cairo-devel BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel BuildRequires: glib2-devel Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit Requires: python3-gobject Requires: python3 Requires: python3-cairo
Python dependencies should be declared following the format "python3dist(foo)".
%changelog
- Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com
- New package for Fedora
%changelog entries should contain the version and release like so:
- Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com - 13-1
There is extra stuff covered in the main review body:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: jack-mixer : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: 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. Review: are these internal to the package? [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. [!]: 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", "GPL (v2)", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Expat License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/jack-mixer/jack- mixer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps Review: jack-mixer should have a Requires on hicolor-icon-theme [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Review: mentioned before. [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 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: issues mentioned above. [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]: 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. Review: It does on x86_64 [-]: 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Review: fails on 2 architectures mentioned before. [-]: %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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Rpmlint ------- Checking: jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debuginfo-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debugsource-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.src.rpm jack-mixer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US faders -> fades, fakers, waders jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/jack_mixer/nsmclient.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mix_box jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mixer jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mixer.py jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US faders -> fades, fakers, waders jack-mixer.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.src:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages/* 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jack-mixer-debuginfo-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer-debugsource 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- jack-mixer: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jack-mixer/jack_mixer/archive/release-13/jack-mixer-13.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ff60d6739fbbfeb7fd7dee06c6dc2f03fd0570e250f0fd0f7564fcf676f085b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ff60d6739fbbfeb7fd7dee06c6dc2f03fd0570e250f0fd0f7564fcf676f085b
Requires -------- jack-mixer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 jack-audio-connection-kit libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3 python3-cairo python3-gobject rtld(GNU_HASH)
jack-mixer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jack-mixer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- jack-mixer: application() application(jack_mixer.desktop) jack-mixer jack-mixer(x86-64) libtool(/usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la)
jack-mixer-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jack-mixer-debuginfo jack-mixer-debuginfo(x86-64)
jack-mixer-debugsource: jack-mixer-debugsource jack-mixer-debugsource(x86-64)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #3 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #1)
1: Remove
BuildRequires: autoconf
$ rpm -q --requires automake |grep auto autoconf >= 2.65
Done
2: You are running configure twice, change
./autogen.sh
to
NOCONFIGURE=1 ./autogen.sh
Done
3: You haven't validated the desktop file
%{_datadir}/applications/jack_mixer.desktop
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ #_desktop_file_install_usage
Done
4: Why two %doc?, change
%doc README.md %doc NEWS
to
%doc NEWS README.md
I had been told one %doc per file before.
5: Remove
Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit
and
Requires: python3
Autorequires takes care of them
As far as python3, sure, but I most certainly will not remove the jack-audio-connection-kit line. What is happening is that Autorequires is making applications that are looking for jack-audio-connection-kit not actually do that, but look for the libjack.so.0. This is causing problems for applications transitioning to pipewire-jack, which has a Provides line for jack-audio-connection-kit that is not honored by packages relying on Autorequires. This is something that I'm going to be pushing for all packages that Require jack-audio-connection-kit to explicitly call it regarless of BuildRequires since it's causing problems for the Pipewire tranition.
rpm -qp --requires /home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jack-mixer-13-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm |grep libjack.so.0 libjack.so.0()(64bit)
Exactly, we can't be looking for libjack.so.0. We must provide compatibility with pipewire-jack, and this shatters that.
and
$ rpm -qp --requires /home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jack-mixer-13-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm |grep /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/python3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #4 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53166967
It fails on armv7hl and i686. Please, have a look at the logs.
Oops, forgot to check for build failures in my copr builds. In fact, it's not meant to build on either of those architectures, so I'll have to exclude those archs.
License: GPLv2
licensecheck found a file with the MIT license. If it's not a mistake, that should be included in the License field with a comment above mentioning that only this file has a different license.
Expat License
jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py
Looks like Expat, not MIT. They're two different licenses (ran into something like this in my Ubuntu packages where it was Expat but I said MIT).
BuildRequires: autoconf BuildRequires: automake BuildRequires: python3-gobject-devel BuildRequires: python3-cairo-devel BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel BuildRequires: glib2-devel Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit Requires: python3-gobject Requires: python3 Requires: python3-cairo
Python dependencies should be declared following the format "python3dist(foo)".
Ran into this when I tried that:
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(cairo)' No matching package to install: 'python3dist(gobject)'
So, considering every other package I've done with python dependencies, this is the first time I've run into that requirement. Apparently it doesn't work.
%changelog
- Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com
- New package for Fedora
%changelog entries should contain the version and release like so:
- Sat Oct 10 2020 Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com - 13-1
Yep, minor oversight. Fixed.
There is extra stuff covered in the main review body:
Package Review
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: jack-mixer : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: 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. Review: are these internal to the package?
They should indeed be internal to the package. This is not intended as a development library but as a standalone application.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. [!]: 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", "GPL (v2)", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Expat License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/jack-mixer/jack- mixer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps Review: jack-mixer should have a Requires on hicolor-icon-theme
Fixed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Review: mentioned before. [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 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: issues mentioned above. [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]: 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. Review: It does on x86_64 [-]: 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Review: fails on 2 architectures mentioned before. [-]: %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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Rpmlint
Checking: jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debuginfo-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debugsource-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-13-1.fc34.src.rpm jack-mixer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US faders -> fades, fakers, waders jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/jack_mixer/nsmclient.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mix_box jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mixer jack-mixer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jack_mixer.py jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US faders -> fades, fakers, waders jack-mixer.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found jack-mixer.src:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages/* 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
Checking: jack-mixer-debuginfo-13-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog jack-mixer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://rdio.space/jack-mixer/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
(none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer (none): E: no installed packages by name jack-mixer-debugsource 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Unversioned so-files
jack-mixer: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.so
Source checksums
https://github.com/jack-mixer/jack_mixer/archive/release-13/jack-mixer-13. tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ff60d6739fbbfeb7fd7dee06c6dc2f03fd0570e250f0fd0f7564fcf676f085b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ff60d6739fbbfeb7fd7dee06c6dc2f03fd0570e250f0fd0f7564fcf676f085b
Requires
jack-mixer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 jack-audio-connection-kit libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3 python3-cairo python3-gobject rtld(GNU_HASH)
jack-mixer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jack-mixer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
jack-mixer: application() application(jack_mixer.desktop) jack-mixer jack-mixer(x86-64) libtool(/usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la)
jack-mixer-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) jack-mixer-debuginfo jack-mixer-debuginfo(x86-64)
jack-mixer-debugsource: jack-mixer-debugsource jack-mixer-debugsource(x86-64)
Rebuilding now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #5 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #6 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Koji build from updated SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53204423
Looks like Expat, not MIT. They're two different licenses (ran into something like this in my Ubuntu packages where it was Expat but I said MIT).
Interesting. According to Wikipedia, MIT and Expat are the same license, though there seem to be some nuances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License Expat is not mentioned on the MIT licensing Fedora wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT However, I compared the text of the "Expat License" from Wikipedia and the so-called "Modern Style with sublicense" and they match: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense The same is true for the license header in jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py. That's the "Modern Style with sublicense" MIT license.
The weird thing is that licensecheck reports "Expat License" very often, but I can't remember seeing it ever report "MIT License" instead.
# nsmclient.py is expat, everything else is GPLv2 License: GPLv2 and Expat
Per above comments, it should still read "MIT" instead of "Expat". However, if Expat really is a different license, this needs to go through Fedora Legal, because it's not a recognized valid license.
Ran into this when I tried that:
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(cairo)' No matching package to install: 'python3dist(gobject)'
So, considering every other package I've done with python dependencies, this is the first time I've run into that requirement. Apparently it doesn't work.
Could be something up with the GTK related Python packages then. Standardized Python Requires and BuildRequires are covered here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_requires_...
%install %make_install mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch} mv %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages/* %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}
Just realized that the last line here is wrong, it should be:
mv %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/* %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}
See the Python macros: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_macros
I re-ran fedora-review just in case. The following issues are still there: Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: jack-mixer : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
From rpmlint: jack-mixer.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/jack_mixer/nsmclient.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
This file should either be made executable or the "#! /usr/bin/env python3" shebang removed from it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #6)
Koji build from updated SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53204423
Looks like Expat, not MIT. They're two different licenses (ran into something like this in my Ubuntu packages where it was Expat but I said MIT).
Interesting. According to Wikipedia, MIT and Expat are the same license, though there seem to be some nuances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License Expat is not mentioned on the MIT licensing Fedora wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT However, I compared the text of the "Expat License" from Wikipedia and the so-called "Modern Style with sublicense" and they match: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense The same is true for the license header in jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py. That's the "Modern Style with sublicense" MIT license.
The weird thing is that licensecheck reports "Expat License" very often, but I can't remember seeing it ever report "MIT License" instead.
# nsmclient.py is expat, everything else is GPLv2 License: GPLv2 and Expat
Per above comments, it should still read "MIT" instead of "Expat". However, if Expat really is a different license, this needs to go through Fedora Legal, because it's not a recognized valid license.
Fedora recognizes the "Expat license" as an MIT license variant, and the correct classification is "MIT" for Fedora license tags.
licensecheck is from Debian, so it reports output the same way Debian does.
Ran into this when I tried that:
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(cairo)' No matching package to install: 'python3dist(gobject)'
So, considering every other package I've done with python dependencies, this is the first time I've run into that requirement. Apparently it doesn't work.
Could be something up with the GTK related Python packages then. Standardized Python Requires and BuildRequires are covered here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ #_requires_and_buildrequires_with_standardized_names
The names are python3dist(pycairo) and python3dist(pygobject).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #8 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #6)
Koji build from updated SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53204423
Looks like Expat, not MIT. They're two different licenses (ran into something like this in my Ubuntu packages where it was Expat but I said MIT).
Interesting. According to Wikipedia, MIT and Expat are the same license, though there seem to be some nuances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License Expat is not mentioned on the MIT licensing Fedora wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT However, I compared the text of the "Expat License" from Wikipedia and the so-called "Modern Style with sublicense" and they match: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense The same is true for the license header in jack_mixer-release-13/nsmclient.py. That's the "Modern Style with sublicense" MIT license.
The weird thing is that licensecheck reports "Expat License" very often, but I can't remember seeing it ever report "MIT License" instead.
# nsmclient.py is expat, everything else is GPLv2 License: GPLv2 and Expat
Per above comments, it should still read "MIT" instead of "Expat". However, if Expat really is a different license, this needs to go through Fedora Legal, because it's not a recognized valid license.
Ran into this when I tried that:
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(cairo)' No matching package to install: 'python3dist(gobject)'
So, considering every other package I've done with python dependencies, this is the first time I've run into that requirement. Apparently it doesn't work.
Could be something up with the GTK related Python packages then. Standardized Python Requires and BuildRequires are covered here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ #_requires_and_buildrequires_with_standardized_names
Per Neal's comment, went with his suggestions (seems obvious, but not at the same time?).
%install %make_install mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch} mv %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/python%{python3_version}/site-packages/* %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}
Just realized that the last line here is wrong, it should be:
mv %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/* %{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}
See the Python macros: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_macros
I re-ran fedora-review just in case. The following issues are still there: Issues: =======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
Fixed
- Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: jack-mixer : /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/jack_mixer_c.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
Reading that article I couldn't figure out how to deal with that. It's clearly building its own .la file.
From rpmlint: jack-mixer.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/jack_mixer/nsmclient.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
This file should either be made executable or the "#! /usr/bin/env python3" shebang removed from it.
Ok, fixed. added %py3_shebang_fix.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #9 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com ---
Reading that article I couldn't figure out how to deal with that. It's clearly building its own .la file.
Unless the libtool file is needed by the package explicitly, it should be removed after it's created. Many C/C++ programs generate .la files during compilation and these are removed manually in the SPEC file by running "rm".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #10 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Last Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53314584
Looks good now! Package approved!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jack-mixer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6d691f47da has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6d691f47da
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-a30f1d3012 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a30f1d3012
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-a30f1d3012 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-a30f1d3012 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a30f1d3012
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-6d691f47da 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-2020-6d691f47da *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6d691f47da
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-35baf9e91e 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 upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-35baf9e91e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-35baf9e91e
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-10-23 22:12:54
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-a30f1d3012 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-35baf9e91e has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org