https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297700

Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Update to drop egg info data that causes runtime problems

Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/DisplayCAL.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc40.src.rpm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297700

Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |farchord@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3787261 bytes in 53 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: [ ]: 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 General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 and/or GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "GNU General Public License". 821 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in

/home/farchord/Documents/fedora/displaycal/2297700-DisplayCAL/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/DisplayCAL-3.9.12 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/doc/DisplayCAL-3.9.12, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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

Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define lc_name %(echo "%{name}" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]') [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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 11571200 bytes in /usr/share DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm:11571200 See:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Gui... [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm DisplayCAL-debuginfo-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm DisplayCAL-debugsource-3.9.12-3.fc41.x86_64.rpm DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc41.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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuoqznk9w')] checks: 32, packages: 4

DisplayCAL.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/DisplayCAL/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/z-displaycal-apply-profiles.desktop DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary displaycal-eecolor-to-madvr-converter DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary displaycal-vrml-to-x3d-converter-console DisplayCAL.spec:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 4) ============================================================================================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 26 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s =============================================================================================================

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: DisplayCAL-debuginfo-3.9.12-3.fc41.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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2su5_aw9')] checks: 32, packages: 1

============================================================================================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =============================================================================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 3

DisplayCAL.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/DisplayCAL/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/z-displaycal-apply-profiles.desktop DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary displaycal-eecolor-to-madvr-converter DisplayCAL.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary displaycal-vrml-to-x3d-converter-console 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 23 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s

Unversioned so-files -------------------- DisplayCAL: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/DisplayCAL/lib64/python313/RealDisplaySizeMM.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/D/DisplayCAL/DisplayCAL-3.9.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d0d67e7ebde2967c9613af976bcc6aa5c70d7bb595bef41f40462f750f2b7ff4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d0d67e7ebde2967c9613af976bcc6aa5c70d7bb595bef41f40462f750f2b7ff4

Requires -------- DisplayCAL (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 SDL2_mixer argyllcms libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXinerama.so.1()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXxf86vm.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.13dist(build) python3.13dist(certifi) python3.13dist(dbus-python) python3.13dist(distro) python3.13dist(numpy) python3.13dist(pillow) python3.13dist(pychromecast) python3.13dist(send2trash) python3.13dist(wxpython) python3.13dist(zeroconf) rtld(GNU_HASH)

DisplayCAL-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

DisplayCAL-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- DisplayCAL: DisplayCAL DisplayCAL(x86-64) application() application(displaycal-3dlut-maker.desktop) application(displaycal-apply-profiles.desktop) application(displaycal-curve-viewer.desktop) application(displaycal-profile-info.desktop) application(displaycal-scripting-client.desktop) application(displaycal-synthprofile.desktop) application(displaycal-testchart-editor.desktop) application(displaycal-vrml-to-x3d-converter.desktop) application(displaycal.desktop) dispcalGUI displaycal metainfo() metainfo(net.displaycal.DisplayCAL.appdata.xml) mimehandler(model/vrml) mimehandler(x-world/x-vrml) python3.13dist(displaycal) python3dist(displaycal)

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

DisplayCAL-debugsource: DisplayCAL-debugsource DisplayCAL-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2297700 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297700

Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |marcdeop@fedoraproject.org

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297700

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED

--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-48568271b1 (DisplayCAL-3.9.12-3.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-48568271b1

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297700

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-48568271b1 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-2024-48568271b1 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-48568271b1

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