https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
Bug ID: 1784577 Summary: Review Request: chatterino2 - Chat client for twitch.tv Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.cordatus@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/chatterino2.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/chatterino2-2.1.4-4.fc31.src.rpm
Description: Chatterino 2 is the second installment of the Twitch chat client series "Chatterino".
Fedora Account System Username: atim
Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/chatterino2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- Now with AppData manifest. Send patches to upstream https://github.com/Chatterino/chatterino2/pull/1445
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/chatterino2/fedora-31-x...
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/chatterino2/fedora-31-x...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
--- Comment #2 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/chatterino2/fedora-rawh...
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/chatterino2/fedora-rawh...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own icons directory
- You need to push upstream for unbundling. Also using forks is not good either since fixes and notably security fixes from upstream won't be included.
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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License JSON License JSON BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* Boost Software License (v1.0) Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "zlib/libpng license Aladdin Free Public License", "Mozilla Public License (v1.1) GNU General Public License (v2 or later) or GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 1161 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/chatterino2/review- chatterino2/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. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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 61440 bytes in 17 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]: 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 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. [x]: 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: chatterino2-2.1.4-6.fc32.x86_64.rpm chatterino2-debuginfo-2.1.4-6.fc32.x86_64.rpm chatterino2-debugsource-2.1.4-6.fc32.x86_64.rpm chatterino2-2.1.4-6.fc32.src.rpm chatterino2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tv -> TV, t, v chatterino2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Chatterino -> Chattering, Chatterton, Chatterer chatterino2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chatterino chatterino2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tv -> TV, t, v chatterino2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Chatterino -> Chattering, Chatterton, Chatterer chatterino2.src:106: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(fmt) chatterino2.src:107: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(humanize) chatterino2.src:110: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(serialize) chatterino2.src:111: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(settings) chatterino2.src:112: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(signals) chatterino2.src:146: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir} chatterino2.src:156: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build PREFIX=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
--- Comment #4 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com ---
- You need to push upstream for unbundling. Also using forks is not good
either since fixes and notably security fixes from upstream won't be included.
I trying, some progress, but 'fmt' in repos >= 5.3 so this is useless :( https://github.com/Chatterino/chatterino2/issues/1444#issuecomment-567679616
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/chatterino2/fedora-rawh...
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/chatterino2/fedora-rawh...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- What about websocketpp? It is packaged in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
--- Comment #6 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- They using patched version of websocketpp https://github.com/ziocleto/websocketpp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Can't that be upstreamed?
Gonna approve for now but you need to work with upstream for the unbundling.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chatterino2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-8139b22c6b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8139b22c6b
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-cde69bbd17 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cde69bbd17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- chatterino2-2.1.4-7.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-cde69bbd17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- chatterino2-2.1.4-7.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-8139b22c6b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-01-04 20:32:52
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- chatterino2-2.1.4-7.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784577
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- chatterino2-2.1.4-7.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org