Bug 2240881

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.


===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 3", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License
     v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
     or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Library
     General Public License v2 or later", "Apache License 2.0". 9 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/qtzeroconf/2240881-qtzeroconf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 15704 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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 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).
[ ]: 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:
[!]: 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 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: qtzeroconf-0.1.0-1.20230927git69497ac.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          qtzeroconf-devel-0.1.0-1.20230927git69497ac.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          qtzeroconf-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.20230927git69497ac.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          qtzeroconf-debugsource-0.1.0-1.20230927git69497ac.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          qtzeroconf-0.1.0-1.20230927git69497ac.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/tmpbnrmmoke')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

qtzeroconf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
qtzeroconf.spec:33: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 33, tab: line 6)
qtzeroconf.spec:63: W: macro-in-%changelog %{autochangelog}
==== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 s ===




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: qtzeroconf-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.20230927git69497ac.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/tmp7t8__l6i')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

==== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 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: 4

qtzeroconf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jbagg/QtZeroConf/archive/69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 792ae2f8a5e24e29ff0513e026e100bf9795f88759af55edc46f4228f8ed238a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 792ae2f8a5e24e29ff0513e026e100bf9795f88759af55edc46f4228f8ed238a


Requires
--------
qtzeroconf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.5)(64bit)
    libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit)
    libavahi-common.so.3()(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_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

qtzeroconf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libQtZeroConf.so.0()(64bit)
    qtzeroconf(x86-64)

qtzeroconf-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

qtzeroconf-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
qtzeroconf:
    libQtZeroConf.so.0()(64bit)
    qtzeroconf
    qtzeroconf(x86-64)

qtzeroconf-devel:
    cmake(QtZeroConf)
    cmake(qtzeroconf)
    qtzeroconf-devel
    qtzeroconf-devel(x86-64)

qtzeroconf-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libQtZeroConf.so.0.1.0-0.1.0-1.20230927git69497ac.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    qtzeroconf-debuginfo
    qtzeroconf-debuginfo(x86-64)

qtzeroconf-debugsource:
    qtzeroconf-debugsource
    qtzeroconf-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/qtzeroconf/2240881-qtzeroconf/srpm/qtzeroconf.spec 2023-09-27 09:59:58.923258038 +0300
+++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/qtzeroconf/2240881-qtzeroconf/srpm-unpacked/qtzeroconf.spec        2023-09-27 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -62,3 +62,2 @@
 %changelog
 %{autochangelog}
-


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2240881 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, R, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Ruby, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) May want to packaged the example as documentation. Building the example may also serve as a smoke test.
b) Builds on all architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106819161
c) There are a few files under other license:
Apache License 2.0
------------------
QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/CommonServices.h
QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/DebugServices.h

BSD 3-Clause License
--------------------
QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/QZeroConfNsdManager.java
QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/dns_sd.h
QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/dnssd_clientlib.c
QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/dnssd_clientstub.c
QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/dnssd_ipc.c
QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/dnssd_ipc.h

Should these be documented in the spec file?

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1)

> Comments:
> a) May want to packaged the example as documentation. Building the example
> may also serve as a smoke test.

The example is a GUI application, which is not applicable for testing the library.

> c) There are a few files under other license:
> Apache License 2.0
> ------------------
> QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/
> CommonServices.h
> QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/
> DebugServices.h

Only used in Win32 builds.

> BSD 3-Clause License
> --------------------
> QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/QZeroConfNsdManager.java
> QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/dns_sd.h
> QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/
> dnssd_clientlib.c
> QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/
> dnssd_clientstub.c
> QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/dnssd_ipc.c
> QtZeroConf-69497acb71b490887d460d7ba7a726f4e9bf5337/bonjour-sdk/dnssd_ipc.h

Only used in Win32 builds / Android builds.

Thanks. Approved.

Review of one of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2240758
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239129
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237325
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218338

would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.

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

FEDORA-2023-c62f313ed8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c62f313ed8

FEDORA-2023-c62f313ed8 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.