https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
Bug ID: 1803945 Summary: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: 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://pagure.io/zita-ajbridge/raw/master/f/zita-ajbridge.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
Description: Zita-ajbridge provides two applications, zita-a2j and zita-j2a. They allow to use an ALSA device as a Jack client, to provide additional capture (a2j) or playback (j2a) channels. Functionally these are equivalent to the alsa_in and alsa_out clients that come with Jack, but they provide much better audio quality. The resampling ratio will typically be stable within 1 PPM and change only very smoothly. Delay will be stable as well even under worst case conditions, e.g. the Jack client running near the end of the cycle.
Fedora Account System Username: eeickmeyer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: <main |Review Request: |package name here> - <short |zita-ajbridge - Allows ALSA |summary here> |devices to be JACK clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #1 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- This package is a prerequisite for, and the main engine behind, an application I intend to bring over from Ubuntu Studio. I found the spec in UnitedRPMS, and this is basically that with the spec more closely matching Fedora Packaging guidelines.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.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=1803945
--- Comment #2 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
First one was a miscopy from my copr build, please disregard it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |fedora@senderek.ie Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fedora@senderek.ie Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie --- Before I start the formal review I'd like to have a few changes made to the spec file.
1) As the source code has a COPYING file with the license text you must include this file in a %license section.
2) Remove the line BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root as $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is used to access the correct directory.
3) Please remove the %clean section
4) Please avoid * in the %files section, you can list the two binaries by name for clarity. The %defattr is not needed.
Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #4 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- 1) Done.
2) Done.
3) Done.
4) Done, except I kept "%{_mandir}/*/*". I understand that is the proper way to do that, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie --- Whenever you change your spec file you must update the SRPM file, otherwise people would build your package using the old spec file. Please upload an up-to-date SRPM.
With regards to the use of wildcards, please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories...
As a general rule I think it's best to be as specific as possible so folks can see which files you're packaging by looking at the spec file.
I'd suggest %{_mandir}/man1/ if you don't want to specify the three man pages by name.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie --- (In reply to Ralf Senderek from comment #5)
I'd suggest %{_mandir}/man1/ if you don't want to specify the three man pages by name.
This should be %{_mandir}/man1/zita* so you don't claim ownership of the man1 directory, of course.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie --- There are two more changes to be made to the spec file:
1) Remove the Group tag. (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag)
2) Use the parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #8 from Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com --- (In reply to Ralf Senderek from comment #6)
(In reply to Ralf Senderek from comment #5)
I'd suggest %{_mandir}/man1/ if you don't want to specify the three man pages by name.
This should be %{_mandir}/man1/zita* so you don't claim ownership of the man1 directory, of course.
Since there are other packages with the name zita, I decided to be even more specific with manpages.
(In reply to Ralf Senderek from comment #7)
There are two more changes to be made to the spec file:
- Remove the Group tag. (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag)
- Use the parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
1) Done.
2) Done.
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/Jam-Incoming/f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie --- Package Review ==============
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]: 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. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 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]: 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: [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: zita-ajbridge-0.8.2-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm zita-ajbridge-debuginfo-0.8.2-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm zita-ajbridge-debugsource-0.8.2-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm zita-ajbridge-0.8.2-3.fc33.src.rpm zita-ajbridge.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alsa -> alas, salsa, balsa zita-ajbridge.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resampling -> re sampling, re-sampling, oversampling zita-ajbridge.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alsa -> alas, salsa, balsa zita-ajbridge.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resampling -> re sampling, re-sampling, oversampling 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. All warnings are false negatives!
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: zita-ajbridge-debuginfo-0.8.2-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- zita-ajbridge.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alsa -> alas, salsa, balsa zita-ajbridge.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resampling -> re sampling, re-sampling, oversampling zita-ajbridge.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> zita-ajbridge-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> zita-ajbridge-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. All warnings are false negatives!
Source checksums ---------------- https://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/downloads/zita-ajbridge-0.8.2.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 92985974a2472c83af6f3cbd7559fdae7726a8af29029ad08a51e7c4cd3373bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 92985974a2472c83af6f3cbd7559fdae7726a8af29029ad08a51e7c4cd3373bf
Requires -------- zita-ajbridge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libasound.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libzita-alsa-pcmi.so.0()(64bit) libzita-resampler.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
zita-ajbridge-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
zita-ajbridge-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- zita-ajbridge: zita-ajbridge zita-ajbridge(x86-64)
zita-ajbridge-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) zita-ajbridge-debuginfo zita-ajbridge-debuginfo(x86-64)
zita-ajbridge-debugsource: zita-ajbridge-debugsource zita-ajbridge-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n zita-ajbridge Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Ruby, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Ralf Senderek fedora@senderek.ie --- So your package has been APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #11 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zita-ajbridge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
Erich Eickmeyer erich@ericheickmeyer.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-03-08 22:06:06
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5f53525c21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5f53525c21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d1ab84dbde 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-d1ab84dbde *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d1ab84dbde
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=1803945
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5f53525c21 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-5f53525c21 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5f53525c21
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=1803945
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d1ab84dbde has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5f53525c21 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803945
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-d1ab84dbde 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