Bug 2166007

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5377494
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166007-budgie-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05377494-budgie-backgrounds/fedora-review/review.txt

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

Taking this review.

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

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



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

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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0
     1.0". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/ngompa/2166007-budgie-backgrounds/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/backgrounds/budgie(budgie-desktop), /usr/share/gnome-
     background-properties(desktop-backgrounds-basic, f31-backgrounds-
     gnome, f33-backgrounds-gnome, gears-backgrounds, f30-backgrounds-
     gnome, f32-backgrounds-gnome, fedora-workstation-backgrounds,
     f34-backgrounds-gnome, f35-backgrounds-gnome, neon-backgrounds,
     f29-backgrounds-gnome, solar-backgrounds, fedorainfinity-backgrounds,
     f36-backgrounds-gnome, f28-backgrounds-gnome, f37-backgrounds-gnome)
[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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source2: https://serebit.com/openpgp/git-at-
     serebit-dot-com.asc
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/
[x]: 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.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: budgie-backgrounds-1.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          budgie-backgrounds-1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp35yszm_j')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

============================================================================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ============================================================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 1

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



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-backgrounds/releases/download/v1.0/budgie-backgrounds-v1.0.tar.xz.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a9dbcd91c4ec1c3c790014f2db39ec7455f0d41fe3c8bdc3e7a723caee9d9fb8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9dbcd91c4ec1c3c790014f2db39ec7455f0d41fe3c8bdc3e7a723caee9d9fb8
https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-backgrounds/releases/download/v1.0/budgie-backgrounds-v1.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 38c23f9f0c0829a6282b81d934136e780a1341ccce338acc2dbf9f14ff539d0c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 38c23f9f0c0829a6282b81d934136e780a1341ccce338acc2dbf9f14ff539d0c


Requires
--------
budgie-backgrounds (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
budgie-backgrounds:
    budgie-backgrounds



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/ngompa/2166007-budgie-backgrounds/srpm/budgie-backgrounds.spec	2023-01-31 19:30:17.304915493 -0500
+++ /home/ngompa/2166007-budgie-backgrounds/srpm-unpacked/budgie-backgrounds.spec	2023-01-31 11:03:13.000000000 -0500
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 Version:        1.0
 Release:        1%{?dist}
-Summary:     Default set of background images for the Budgie Desktop
+Summary: Default set of background images for the Budgie Desktop
 
-License:         CC0-1.0
-URL:                https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-backgrounds
+License:  CC0-1.0
+URL: https://github.com/BuddiesOfBudgie/budgie-backgrounds
 Source0:        %{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.xz
 Source1:        %{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.xz.asc
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 BuildRequires: ImageMagick
 BuildRequires: gcc
-BuildRequires: gnupg2
+BuildRequires:  gnupg2
 BuildRequires: jhead
-BuildRequires: meson
+BuildRequires:  meson
 
 %description


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2166007 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Java, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

The only real issue I see is that the spec text alignment in the preamble (the stuff before "%prep") is inconsistent. I'd like to see that cleaned up when you import.

Otherwise though, this looks good to me!

PACKAGE APPROVED.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/budgie-backgrounds

Closing as this should now be in rawhide / testing.