Bug 2240645

@ngompa13 I'd also be up for being a maintainer of this.

Updated to the latest version:

Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/waycheck.spec
SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/waycheck-0.1.3-1.fc38.src.rpm

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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 14
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/waycheck/2240645-waycheck/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 8399 bytes in 1 files.
[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).
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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: 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: waycheck-0.1.3-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          waycheck-debuginfo-0.1.3-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          waycheck-debugsource-0.1.3-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          waycheck-0.1.3-1.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/tmpbolqw6ip')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

waycheck.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary waycheck
================= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.8 s =================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: waycheck-debuginfo-0.1.3-1.fc38.x86_64.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/tmpzbxe5f0k')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 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: 3

waycheck.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary waycheck
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/serebit/waycheck/-/archive/v0.1.3/waycheck-v0.1.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5e7fa30ef7ff65f2bd8fe6036a6d035f564311c275461fc39c3480722252b674
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5e7fa30ef7ff65f2bd8fe6036a6d035f564311c275461fc39c3480722252b674


Requires
--------
waycheck (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.5)(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

waycheck-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

waycheck-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
waycheck:
    application()
    application(dev.serebit.Waycheck.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(dev.serebit.Waycheck.metainfo.xml)
    waycheck
    waycheck(x86-64)

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

waycheck-debugsource:
    waycheck-debugsource
    waycheck-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2240645 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Ruby, Perl, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, R, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


Comments:
a) Why are wayland-protocol and wayland-scanner needed as dependencies? They are not used in CI
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/serebit/waycheck/-/blob/main/.gitlab-ci.yml
If not needed, please remove on import.
b) Builds on all architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106751605
c) Approved

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/waycheck

FEDORA-2023-10a0e461ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-10a0e461ba

FEDORA-2023-cfa6f26942 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cfa6f26942

FEDORA-2023-8742bce67a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8742bce67a

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-76fe29ce3c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-76fe29ce3c

FEDORA-2023-cfa6f26942 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-cfa6f26942 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cfa6f26942

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

FEDORA-2023-8742bce67a has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-8742bce67a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8742bce67a

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

FEDORA-2023-10a0e461ba has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-10a0e461ba \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-10a0e461ba

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-76fe29ce3c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-76fe29ce3c

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

FEDORA-2023-cfa6f26942 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-8742bce67a has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-10a0e461ba has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-76fe29ce3c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.