Bug 2080701

A few things:

- BuildRequires:  cmake(KF5Declarative) <--- is duplicated
- There is no need to use _description
- Instead of %{_kf5_archdatadir}/qml/ you can use %{_kf5_qmldir}
- Some lines like Summary or URL are not properly aligned ( yes, it's nitpicking but.. ;-) )
- I would personally use for Summary: "Making tiling window management easy. On KDE Plasma."
- Do we want -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo ? Our cmake_kf5 macro uses "release"...
- Question: why "%{_kf5_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/status/%{name}*" and not "%{_kf5_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/status/*" ? (adding the %{name} feels unnecessary)
- The lines with files in "%{_kf5_datadir}/kconf_update/" can be replace with a single "%{_kf5_datadir}/kconf_update/*"

My own take:
https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/bismuth.spec
https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/bismuth-3.1.2-1.fc36.src.rpm

Let me know if we can merge our work. 

I can review too if you needinfo me.

Hello @zebob.m let me merge your work and fix bit more mine then please review it so we can put into repo as well. That would be awesome to have it. I'm doing now, and also sorry for late answer I was doing Nest event/talk. 

Thank you for your work as well.

I updated all, please do review.

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/bismuth/raw/main/f/bismuth.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/bismuth/raw/main/f/bismuth-3.1.2-1.fc36.src.rpm

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "MIT
     License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* BSD
     3-Clause License", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* MIT License
     [generated file]", "MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
     Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* Creative Commons
     Attribution 4.0". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/bismuth/review-
     bismuth/licensecheck.txt

I made a mistake, it's LGPL-3.0-or-later not GPL-3.0-or-later


[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.


*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License
-----------------------------------
bismuth-3.1.2/LICENSES/BSD-3-Clause.txt
bismuth-3.1.2/cmake/doctest.cmake
bismuth-3.1.2/cmake/doctestAddTests.cmake

*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
-----------------------------------------------
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kcm/icons/sc-apps-bismuth.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/16-status-bismuth-column.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/16-status-bismuth-floating.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/16-status-bismuth-monocle.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/16-status-bismuth-quarter.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/16-status-bismuth-spiral.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/16-status-bismuth-spread.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/16-status-bismuth-stair.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/16-status-bismuth-tile.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/32-status-bismuth-column.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/32-status-bismuth-floating.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/32-status-bismuth-monocle.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/32-status-bismuth-quarter.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/32-status-bismuth-spiral.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/32-status-bismuth-spread.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/32-status-bismuth-stair.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kwinscript/icons/32-status-bismuth-tile.svg

*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kcm/icons/22-categories-bismuth-kcm.svg
bismuth-3.1.2/src/kcm/icons/64-categories-bismuth-kcm.svg

*No copyright* MIT License
the rest

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/bismuth/core,
     /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/bismuth

Own %{_kf5_qmldir}/org/kde/%{name} and %{_kf5_qmldir}/org/kde/%{name}/core
Or glob it all


bismuth.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/bismuth/LICENSE LICENSES/MIT.txt

Just get rid of the LICENSE symlink, it won't point to the correct location.



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]: 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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "MIT
     License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* BSD
     3-Clause License", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* MIT License
     [generated file]", "MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
     Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* Creative Commons
     Attribution 4.0". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/bismuth/review-
     bismuth/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/bismuth/core,
     /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/bismuth
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 3 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]: 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 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.
[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: 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
-------
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

bismuth.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
bismuth.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later
bismuth.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY-4.0
bismuth.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
bismuth.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-or-later
bismuth.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC-BY-4.0
bismuth.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/kservices5/kcm_bismuth.desktop /usr/share/kpackage/kcms/kcm_bismuth/metadata.desktop
bismuth.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/bismuth/LICENSE LICENSES/MIT.txt

I fix license LGPL and file section license plus own directories properly as well.

LGTM, approved.

Repo and branch requests are sent.

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46265
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46266
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46267

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bismuth

Package is now in repositories, closing review.