https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
Bug ID: 1447517 Summary: Review Request: ddcutil - control monitor settings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rockowitz@minsoft.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/ddcutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/ddcutil-0.8.0-1.fc25.src.rpm website: http://www.ddcutil.com source: https://github.com/rockowitz/ddcutil Fedora Account System Username: rockowitz@minsoft.com OBS: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/rockowitz/ Copr: http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rockowitz/ddcutil/fedora-25-x...
Successfully built on Koji using --scratch option, but I can find no record of the build under my account (rockowitz@minsoft.com). Trying to submit a build without the --scratch option results in permissions error.
I am the developer of ddcutil. This is my first Fedora package, and needs a sponsor. And needless to say, I'm new to Koji.
The spec file will likely require cleanup. It's grown into a complex mess in that it serves for both Fedora and SuSE builds, both locally and on OBS. But it does work on both Copr and Koji as well.
Description:
ddcutil queries and changes physical monitor settings.
ddcutil primarily uses DDC/CI (Display Data Channel Command Interface) to communicate with monitors implementing MCCS (Monitor Control Command Set) over I2C. Alternatively, there is support for monitors (such as Eizo ColorEdge displays) that implement MCCS using a USB connection.
Use cases for ddcutil include: - as part of color profile management - to switch between a monitor's inputs - to control brightness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---
The spec file will likely require cleanup. It's grown into a complex mess
Indeed.
It will be very hard to find a reviewer for such a package, less a reviewer who would approve the package.
Please focus on building a small and easy to maintain Fedora package that attempts at following Fedora's packaging guidelines. Avoid all the superfluous "complex mess". Use Mock for doing local test-builds. No need to worry about Koji yet, which also uses Mock under the hood.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #2 from sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com --- Per your suggestion, I have created a simple ddcutil.spec file for use only when creating Fedora distribution packages (i.e. no OBS, no SuSE). The spec file creates only the standalone application version of ddcutil, not the shared library version, which is still subject to significant changes.
The relevant updated URLs:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil-0.8.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
The package builds successfully for all available architectures and releases using mock locally, COPR, and as Koji scratch builds. However, given that it performs low level I2c communication, it requires testing to verify that it works properly on alternative architectures. Raspberry Pi users (aarch64) have reported success with the upstream version. I'm unsure how to address this issue, so the spec file contains several ExcludeArch statements that are commented out, allowing ddcutil to at least build on the alternative architectures for now. ddcutil builds only for Fedora releases, not EPEL. Mageia, etc.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
Jan Kalina jkalina@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkalina@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kalina jkalina@redhat.com --- Informal (UNOFFICIAL) Package Review ==================================== Thanks, great util, just two issues: - package should own directories /usr/share/doc/ddcutil and /usr/share/ddcutil - should be added into %files section - hidden directory usr/lib/.build-id should be removed
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkalina/Downloads/review- ddcutil/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ddcutil/data, /usr/share/doc/ddcutil, /usr/share/ddcutil [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/ddcutil, /usr/share/ddcutil, /usr/share/ddcutil/data [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise: use macros [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. (except mentioned /usr/lib/.build-id) [-]: 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 30720 bytes in 4 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ddcutil- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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: ddcutil-0.8.3-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm ddcutil-debuginfo-0.8.3-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm ddcutil-0.8.3-1.fc27.src.rpm ddcutil.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ddcutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id ddcutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ddcutil-debuginfo-0.8.3-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory ddcutil.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ddcutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id ddcutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires -------- ddcutil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdrm.so.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ddcutil-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- ddcutil: ddcutil ddcutil(x86-64)
ddcutil-debuginfo: ddcutil-debuginfo ddcutil-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.ddcutil.com/ddcutil-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d3b4650999849a346e2741287e253aba86eac59ba2da39ea65fd7633de9c507 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d3b4650999849a346e2741287e253aba86eac59ba2da39ea65fd7633de9c507
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #4 from sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com --- Per Jan's review, the %files section has been changed so that package ddcutil owns directories /usr/share/doc/ddcutil and /usr/share/ddcutil.
I believe the rpmlint complaint about hidden directory /usr/lib/.build-id is a false positive. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431408.
The updated file locations are:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil-0.8.4-1.fc25.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #5 from sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com --- New Spec and SRPM files to reflect recent upstream release 0.8.5. For a description of changes, see http://www.ddcutil.com/release_notes.
Updated file locations:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil-0.8.5-1.fc27.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Not sure what is this for:
rpm --version rpmbuild --version
- make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install → %make_install
- no need for %attr(755,root,root)' just:
%{_bindir}/ddcutil
- Since you're upstream, it would be best if your install script doesn't install anything in docdir. It's better to do it in %files like this:
%doc AUTHORS NEWS.md README.md ChangeLog %license COPYING
Files will then be copied automatically. I don't know what's needed for other distro though so maybe it's not possible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #7 from sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
- Not sure what is this for:
rpm --version rpmbuild --version
- Purely informational, dating from the time I was trying to create a single rpm spec file that worked everywhere. Will remove.
- make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install → %make_install
Will change
- no need for %attr(755,root,root)' just:
%{_bindir}/ddcutil
Will change
- Since you're upstream, it would be best if your install script doesn't
install anything in docdir. It's better to do it in %files like this:
%doc AUTHORS NEWS.md README.md ChangeLog %license COPYING
Files will then be copied automatically. I don't know what's needed for other distro though so maybe it's not possible.
This one is problematic. At least for me, since packaging is not my thing. Will investigate the impact on other distros.
A final question. When I upload the updated package, should I bump the release number from 1 to 2, given that the package is still under review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com ---
When I upload the updated package, should I bump the release number from 1 to 2, given that the package is still under review?
It's not needed, no.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #9 from sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com --- ddcutil.spec has been modified per Robert-André Mauchin's comments.
In particular, the %doc/%licence simplification has been implemented. Having upstream not install the docdir files actually simplifies both the Debian and SuSE packaging as well. However, upstream will not be changed until the next release, 0.8.6. As a transitional aid, the %install step removes the COPYING file: rm -f %{buildroot}/usr/share/doc/%{name}/COPYING
Architecture s390x is now explicitly excluded, since ddcutil makes no sense in that environment. On the other hand, the commented out lines regarding armv7hl and aarch64 have been deleted, since ddcutil is known to work on those architectures.
File locations are unchanged:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil-0.8.5-1.fc27.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- The package is okay to be accepted imho. You still need a sponsor thogh, try introducing yourself to the fedora-devel mailing list.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #11 from sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com --- New Spec and SRPM files to reflect recent upstream release 0.8.6. For a description of changes, see http://www.ddcutil.com/release_notes.
Updated file locations:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil-0.8.6-1.fc27.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #12 from sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com --- New Spec and SRPM files to reflect recent upstream release 0.9.1. For a description of changes, see http://www.ddcutil.com/release_notes.
Updated file locations:
Spec URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ddcutil.com/fedora/ddcutil-0.9.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
James Hogarth james.hogarth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |james.hogarth@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #13 from James Hogarth james.hogarth@gmail.com --- Hi Sanford,
I am a sponsor and can take this to the finish line with you.
As per the following documentation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
in the section "Show Your Expertise by Commenting on other Review Requests" please can you carry out a few informal review requests to demonstrate your understanding of the guidelines.
Any questions please give me a poke.
When that's done we can complete your sponsorship and get this package into Fedora :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
James Hogarth james.hogarth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(rockowitz@minsoft | |.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517
--- Comment #14 from sanford rockowitz rockowitz@minsoft.com --- Just a comment since bugzilla is complaining of no action on NEEDINFO. James Hogarth and I are in ongoing email communication re the informal review requests.
Sanford
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org