Bug 2244407

Taking this review. This looks like a really fun and handy app.

gah, forgot to assign the bug to myself

Other than the two things listed below, this looks good to me, and the two
issues look easy to resolve.

Issues:

* The License field states GPL-3.0-only, but many of the source files are
  "GPL-3.0-or-later". I suspect the developer's intentions were to license the
  whole thing as GPL-3.0-or-later, however for now I believe it would be
  correct to specify the license as "GPL-3.0-only AND GPL-3.0-or-later" since
  many files do not have explicit license headers.
* gtest is a build requires but it doesn't look like the tests are actually
  being built and run.

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited License (with License
     Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated
     file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF All
     Permissive License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)
     and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License
     (with License Retention)", "BSD 3-Clause License". 141 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/user/anymeal/2244407-anymeal/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
[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.
[!]: 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 96192 bytes in 2 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: 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]: 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]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: anymeal-1.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          anymeal-debuginfo-1.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          anymeal-debugsource-1.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          anymeal-1.20-1.fc40.src.rpm
==================================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp6dxvj5wt')]
checks: 31, packages: 4

===================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =====================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: anymeal-debuginfo-1.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
==================================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmphk8snd_j')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

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





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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

 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/releases/download/v1.20/anymeal-1.20.tar.xz.asc :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 82a6d6eab9467bfeb0b924080c5d48de8351e6136a0bcd8f089ea64186140211
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82a6d6eab9467bfeb0b924080c5d48de8351e6136a0bcd8f089ea64186140211
https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/releases/download/v1.20/anymeal-1.20.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d2addee2e3d69f42ca77183cb8f24d7464c39bf03fcaf98e49d3eed8c6acbb05
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2addee2e3d69f42ca77183cb8f24d7464c39bf03fcaf98e49d3eed8c6acbb05


Requires
--------
anymeal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5PrintSupport.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5PrintSupport.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(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)
    librecode.so.3()(64bit)
    libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

anymeal-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

anymeal-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
anymeal:
    anymeal
    anymeal(x86-64)
    application()
    application(de.wedesoft.anymeal.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(de.wedesoft.anymeal.appdata.xml)

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

anymeal-debugsource:
    anymeal-debugsource
    anymeal-debugsource(x86-64)



AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: /home/user/anymeal/2244407-anymeal/upstream-
  unpacked/Source0/anymeal-1.20/configure.ac:81


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244407
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, fonts, R, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Just a quick note:

> # https://www.wedesoft.de/gnupg-wedekind.asc
> Source2:  gnupg-wedekind.asc

There's no reason you couldn't have the URL in Source2. It would still work fine.

> %{_datadir}/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/anymeal_qt.qm
> %{_datadir}/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/anymeal_qt.qm
> %{_datadir}/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/anymeal_qt.qm
> %{_datadir}/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/anymeal_qt.qm

This should be identified with "%find_lang %{name}_qt --with-qt" rather than manually listed, so that the translation files are correctly tagged.

Thanks for the feedback.  The package uses Googletest source files to compile the tests.
These are not packaged in Fedora. They are in OpenSUSE and Debian.  Made a pull request
to add them:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/pull-request/8
Maybe there is a way to make a build depend on a debugsource package?
Checked if upstream would want to try and run tests with compiled libraries:
https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/issues/40

Current head of repository no longer has obsolete macro:
https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/pull/38
As a minor change, prefer to package release version.

Updated licenses and checking upstream on intent:
https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/issues/39

Used url for source2

Used "%find_lang %{name} --with-qt"

Can wait for response from upstream and updates to Googletest, but have updated
the package:
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06537512-anymeal/anymeal.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06537512-anymeal/anymeal-1.20-1.fc40.src.rpm

Unless the tests actually include gtest/gmock source files, it can probably be adapted to use the compiled version.

Upstream has adapted tests and indicated all files are under GPL-3.0-or-later

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546139-anymeal/anymeal.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546139-anymeal/anymeal-1.21-1.fc40.src.rpm

koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107744623

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6546191
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244407-anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546191-anymeal/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros

Everything looks good to me, and I have verified locally that the tests passed.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Minor nitpick, `%autosetup` works without `-n %{name}-%{version}`, but it works fine with it too and there's no guideline against it that I can find.

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

FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c

Thanks for the review.

FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c 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-be8838ba0c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c

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

FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308

FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308 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-cbfdbf9308 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308

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

FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.