https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Bug ID: 2315970 Summary: Review Request: fvwm3 - Highly configurable multiple virtual desktop window manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lemenkov@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/fvwm3.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Fvwm is a window manager for X11. It is designed to minimize memory consumption, provide a 3D look to window frames, and implement a virtual desktop. Fedora Account System Username: peter
This is a next generation of a well-known window-manager. this version is not a fully compatible with a previous v2 so we'll keep both of them until (maybe) Fedora 43.
Koji scratch build for Rawhide:
* https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124248610
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |2315445
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315445 [Bug 2315445] fvwm2 was replaced by fvwm3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://www.fvwm.org/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8098317 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Jos de Kloe josdekloe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |josdekloe@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Jos de Kloe josdekloe@gmail.com --- I was to late to take this review, but since I am interested in having this one packaged I looked at it anyway.
Here are my first findings:
(preliminary) Package Review ==============
Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ==>the desktop file is install with a regular install command
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/FvwmScript.mo See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ==>the source code contains files with a number of different licenses (fortunately I think they are all allowed by Fedora) So I think this should be reflected in the License field.
"NTP License (legal disclaimer)", fvwm3-1.1.0/fvwm/screen.h
"MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/tree.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/queue.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/cJSON.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/cJSON.h fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/abiosoft/ishell/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/abiosoft/readline/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/fatih/color/LICENSE.md fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/mattn/go-colorable/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/mattn/go-isatty/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/sirupsen/logrus/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/sirupsen/logrus/alt_exit.go
"*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex/COPYING fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex/shlex.go
ISC License fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/asprintf.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/log.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcat.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcat.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcpy.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcpy.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strtonum.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strtonum.h
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ==> it seems fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/ contains some bundled go libraries These should be unbundled or an FPC exception is needed I think. [x]: 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. There is a Requires for sendmail but I don't see any reference to sendmail in the source code. If this really is needed could you point out where it is used? [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 82868 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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
Perl: [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. There are perl files in fvwm3-1.1.0/perllib but thre is no Requires or BuildRequires for perl
===== 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. ==>I have not tried this yet. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. there is no check section Also upstream does not provide tests, but maybe if we can think of some useful tests we could suggest some? [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: [!]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
==>manual run of rpmlint gives this output:
rpmlint fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ================================= rpmlint session starts ================================= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
rpmlint fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ================================= rpmlint session starts ================================= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 1
fvwm3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fvwm-convert-2.6 fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/da/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/sv_SE/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
==>manual run of rpmlint gives this output:
rpmlint fvwm3-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm (none): E: fatal error while reading fvwm3-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte 0xbe in position 444: invalid start byte
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/archive/1.1.0/fvwm3-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c119fcc666d2cae281322aaf3578bfb9beed2d6d0383bd71073e29ea90a0f53b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c119fcc666d2cae281322aaf3578bfb9beed2d6d0383bd71073e29ea90a0f53b
Requires -------- fvwm3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/mimeopen /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh /usr/sbin/sendmail libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcursor.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libevent-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfribidi.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit) python3-pyxdg rtld(GNU_HASH) xdg-utils xlockmore xterm
fvwm3-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
fvwm3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- fvwm3: fvwm3 fvwm3(x86-64)
fvwm3-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fvwm3-debuginfo fvwm3-debuginfo(x86-64)
fvwm3-debugsource: fvwm3-debugsource fvwm3-debugsource(x86-64)
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: fvwm3-1.1.0-build/fvwm3-1.1.0/configure.ac:22
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2315970 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Perl, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #3)
I was to late to take this review, but since I am interested in having this one packaged I looked at it anyway.
Thanks!
Here are my first findings:
(preliminary) Package Review
Issues:
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file.
==>the desktop file is install with a regular install command
Added desktop-file-validate.
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/FvwmScript.mo See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
Done. Mo-files installed into standard directory.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ==>the source code contains files with a number of different licenses (fortunately I think they are all allowed by Fedora) So I think this should be reflected in the License field.
"NTP License (legal disclaimer)",
fvwm3-1.1.0/fvwm/screen.h
"MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License",
fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/tree.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/queue.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/cJSON.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/cJSON.h fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/abiosoft/ishell/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/abiosoft/readline/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/fatih/color/LICENSE.md fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/mattn/go-colorable/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/mattn/go-isatty/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/sirupsen/logrus/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/sirupsen/logrus/alt_exit.go
"*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex/COPYING fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex/shlex.go
ISC License
fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/asprintf.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/log.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcat.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcat.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcpy.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcpy.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strtonum.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strtonum.h
Adjusted licensing info. I did not listed licenses of Golang-files (not used by us yet).
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ==> it seems fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/ contains some bundled go libraries These should be unbundled or an FPC exception is needed I think.
We do not use it so I just removed them during %prep stage.
[x]: 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. There is a Requires for sendmail but I don't see any reference to sendmail in the source code. If this really is needed could you point out where it is used?
Looks like a leftover from fvwm2 package. Removed mention of fvwm-bug and fvwm-menu-headlines.
[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 82868 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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
Perl: [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. There are perl files in fvwm3-1.1.0/perllib but thre is no Requires or BuildRequires for perl
Re-added perl-generators back which was left during the transition from fvwm2 to fvwm3.
===== 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. ==>I have not tried this yet. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. there is no check section Also upstream does not provide tests, but maybe if we can think of some useful tests we could suggest some?
We'll need to run X-server and then run fvwm3 inside and then actually check if it can show/manage some windows (xterm?) and maybe something else. If anyone comes up with a plan we can do it.
[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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
Done.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
==>manual run of rpmlint gives this output:
rpmlint fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ================================= rpmlint session starts ================================= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
rpmlint fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ================================= rpmlint session starts ================================= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 1
fvwm3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fvwm-convert-2.6 fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/da/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/sv_SE/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s
Relocated mo-files into standard directory.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
==>manual run of rpmlint gives this output:
rpmlint fvwm3-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm (none): E: fatal error while reading fvwm3-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte 0xbe in position 444: invalid start byte
Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/archive/1.1.0/fvwm3-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c119fcc666d2cae281322aaf3578bfb9beed2d6d0383bd71073e29ea90a0f53b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c119fcc666d2cae281322aaf3578bfb9beed2d6d0383bd71073e29ea90a0f53b
Requires
fvwm3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/mimeopen /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh /usr/sbin/sendmail libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcursor.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libevent-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfribidi.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit) python3-pyxdg rtld(GNU_HASH) xdg-utils xlockmore xterm
fvwm3-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
fvwm3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
fvwm3: fvwm3 fvwm3(x86-64)
fvwm3-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fvwm3-debuginfo fvwm3-debuginfo(x86-64)
fvwm3-debugsource: fvwm3-debugsource fvwm3-debugsource(x86-64)
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: fvwm3-1.1.0-build/fvwm3-1.1.0/configure.ac:22
Fixed see note above.
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2315970 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Perl, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/fvwm3.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/fvwm3-1.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
New koji scratch build for Rawhide:
* https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125508139
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2055530 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2055530&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8098317 to 8208150
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8208150 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND NTP AND MIT and BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe josdekloe@gmail.com --- Thanks for your updated version! I am happy with your changes and have no further remarks, so now it is up to the assignee to actually approve the package if he agrees.
As for the possible adding of tests, this is not required for approval I think. The packaging guidelines only says: "If the source code of the package provides a test suite, it should be executed in the %check section, whenever it is practical to do so." I have no personal experience with testing GUI based software, but I think it would be good if we could find some way to add tests in a later stage. (or have some tests included upstream).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #8 from Jos de Kloe josdekloe@gmail.com --- I did a bit of searching, and a simple test could be something like this: (dependencies xorg-x11-server-Xvfb xwd xterm cowsay)
Xvfb :100 -ac +extension XTEST & fvwm3 -display :100 -f /usr/share/fvwm3/default-config & xterm -display :100 & DISPLAY=:100.0 xdotool mousemove 100 100 DISPLAY=:100.0 xdotool type "cowsay moo" DISPLAY=:100.0 xdotool key Return xwd -display :100 -silent -root -out image.xwd killall Xvfb
and then compare the image with an expected copy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #9 from Jos de Kloe josdekloe@gmail.com --- and of course xdotool is a dependency as well...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #10 from Jos de Kloe josdekloe@gmail.com --- And I should thank the writer of this webpage https://blog.uxul.de/e?e=mt-132 for providing the inspiration.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #8)
I did a bit of searching, and a simple test could be something like this: (dependencies xorg-x11-server-Xvfb xwd xterm cowsay)
Xvfb :100 -ac +extension XTEST & fvwm3 -display :100 -f /usr/share/fvwm3/default-config & xterm -display :100 & DISPLAY=:100.0 xdotool mousemove 100 100 DISPLAY=:100.0 xdotool type "cowsay moo" DISPLAY=:100.0 xdotool key Return xwd -display :100 -silent -root -out image.xwd killall Xvfb
and then compare the image with an expected copy.
I'll try to add it as a gating test which we'll run after RPM build.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- A new version:
Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/fvwm3.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/fvwm3-1.1.1-1.fc41.src.rpm
Koji scratch build for Rawhide:
* https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126499555
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2060972 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2060972&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8208150 to 8338640
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8338640 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Ping, Neal :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- At this point, I think things look good, so...
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fvwm3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-2ac82a7101 (fvwm3-1.1.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2ac82a7101
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-c96d1435b1 (fvwm3-1.1.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c96d1435b1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-2ac82a7101 (fvwm3-1.1.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2ac82a7101
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-2ac82a7101 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-2ac82a7101 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2ac82a7101
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=2315970
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-c96d1435b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-c96d1435b1 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-c96d1435b1
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=2315970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-01-22 01:49:54
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-c96d1435b1 (fvwm3-1.1.1-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-2ac82a7101 (fvwm3-1.1.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org