Bug 2249395

> Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/blob/master/f/86box.spec
This leads to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition of the spec. Please use "raw file" links.

> License:	GPLv2+
Old Callaway-style tag. The SPDX equivalent of this is "GPL-2.0-or-later".
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names

> %ifarch i386 x86_64
It'd probably be safer to use the "%{ix86}" macro here instead of just "i386".

>   %ifarch arm aarch64
Same here - use the "%{arm32}" macro to check for 32-bit ARM architectures.

>   mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/${i}x${i}/apps
> ...
> desktop-file-install --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications src/unix/assets/net.86box.86Box.desktop
Mixed use of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Please pick one and stick with it.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_using_buildroot_and_optflags_vs_rpm_build_root_and_rpm_opt_flags

Fixed these issues.
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86box.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/06637672/86Box-4.0.1-1.src.rpm
Description: Emulator of x86-based machines based on PCem. 
Fedora Account System Username: leo

Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=109051593

Whoops, wrong spec URL.
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/06637672/86Box-4.0.1-1.src.rpm
Description: Emulator of x86-based machines based on PCem. 
Fedora Account System Username: leo

Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=109051593

Hi Leo, could you update this to v4.1?
https://github.com/86Box/86Box/releases/tag/v4.1

Leo, are you still interested in packaging this?

Apologies. Will update ASAP.

Updated to 4.1.
Spec URL: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM URL:  https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/07920923/86Box-4.1-1.src.rpm

Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122177932

> Version:	4.1
v4.2 is now available.
https://github.com/86Box/86Box/releases/tag/v4.2

> cp src/unix/assets/${i}x${i}/net.86box.86Box.png %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/${i}x${i}/apps
> [...]
> cp src/unix/assets/net.86box.86Box.metainfo.xml %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}
Please use `cp -p` or `install -p` to preserve timestamps.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps

Fixed these issues, thank you!
Updated to v4.2

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/08028425/86Box-4.2-1.src.rpm
Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=123555066

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8028511
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249395-86box/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08028511-86Box/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.

Leo, are you still interested in getting this into Fedora?
Could you reupload the SRPM somewhere? The copr build is no longer available.
(Also, v4.2.1 is now out.)

My apologies for the extended delay on this. Here is the update.
Updated to v5.3

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/09976311/86Box-5.3-1.src.rpm
Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140774381

Created attachment 2121231 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8028511 to 9976318

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9976318
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249395-86box/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09976318-86Box/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.

An it be built with USE_QT6?

Yep!
Enabled QT6

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/09976483/86Box-5.3-1.src.rpm
Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140776183

Created attachment 2121233 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9976318 to 9976486

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9976486
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249395-86box/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09976486-86Box/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.

Fixed a typo in the spec for aarch64 and other non-x86_64 architectures, where it wasn't using QT6 properly.


Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/09976525/86Box-5.3-1.src.rpm
Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140776481

Created attachment 2121234 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9976486 to 9976532

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9976532
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249395-86box/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09976532-86Box/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.

Fixes compilation error on i686, Package 'libserialport' not found

--- a/86Box.spec
+++ b/86Box.spec
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
 BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
 BuildRequires: libatomic
 BuildRequires: libevdev-devel
+BuildRequires: libserialport-devel
 BuildRequires: libslirp-devel
 BuildRequires: libxkbcommon-x11-devel
 BuildRequires: libXi-devel
@@ -34,6 +35,7 @@
 Requires: fluid-soundfont-gm
 
 Patch1: 01-fallthrough-fix.patch
+Patch2: 86Box-5.3-png.patch
 
 %description
 86Box is a hypervisor and IBM PC system emulator that specializes in
@@ -47,7 +49,7 @@
 %autosetup -p1
 
 %build
-%ifarch %{ix86} x86_64
+%ifarch x86_64
   %cmake -DRELEASE=on -DUSE_QT6=on
 %else
   %ifarch %{arm32} aarch64


Patch 86Box-5.3-png.patch fixes compilation error on Rawhide where in libpng-devel was added PNG cmake files

CMake Error at /usr/lib64/cmake/PNG/PNGTargets.cmake:103 (message):
  The imported target "PNG::png_static" references the file
     "/usr/lib64/libpng16.a"
  but this file does not exist.  Possible reasons include:

86Box-5.3-png.patch:

--- a/src/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/src/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ if(APPLE)
     target_link_libraries(86Box Freetype::Freetype)
 endif()
 
-find_package(PNG REQUIRED)
+find_package(PNG REQUIRED MODULE)
 include_directories(${PNG_INCLUDE_DIRS})
 target_link_libraries(86Box PNG::PNG)
 

With fixes compilation in Rawhide succeeded

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143636462

Thank you! Your fixes have been integrated.


Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/10257892/86Box-5.3-1.src.rpm
Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143656128

Created attachment 2134711 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9976532 to 10257895

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10257895
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249395-86box/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10257895-86Box/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.

Dependency fluid-soundfont-gm have size 140 MB - can it be weak (Recommends) dependency?

BuildRequires: qt6-qtbase-static
BuildRequires: zlib-ng-compat-static

Should be replaced with
BuildRequires: qt6-qtbase-devel
BuildRequires: zlib-ng-compat-devel

Updated patch fixes both zlib and png static issues

--- a/src/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/src/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ if(APPLE)
     target_link_libraries(86Box Freetype::Freetype)
 endif()
.
+set(CMAKE_FIND_PACKAGE_PREFER_CONFIG OFF)
 find_package(PNG REQUIRED)
 include_directories(${PNG_INCLUDE_DIRS})
 target_link_libraries(86Box PNG::PNG)

Better patch

--- a/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ endif()
 
 set(CMAKE_C_STANDARD 11)
 set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 14)
-set(CMAKE_FIND_PACKAGE_PREFER_CONFIG ON)
+set(CMAKE_FIND_PACKAGE_PREFER_CONFIG OFF)
 
 # Optional features
 #

With %autorelease should you use

%changelog
%autochangelog

?

Thanks!

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/10260532/86Box-5.3-1.src.rpm
Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143680020

Created attachment 2134834 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10257895 to 10260534

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10260534
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249395-86box/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10260534-86Box/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.

I still think zlib-ng-compat-static is undesirable and can be changed to zlib-ng-compat-devel after replacing patch 02-png-module-fix.patch with new patch

--- a/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ endif()
 
 set(CMAKE_C_STANDARD 11)
 set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 14)
-set(CMAKE_FIND_PACKAGE_PREFER_CONFIG ON)
+set(CMAKE_FIND_PACKAGE_PREFER_CONFIG OFF)
 
 # Optional features
 #

This patch also fixes issue with png in Rawhide.



Another issues from https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249395-86box/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10260534-86Box/fedora-review/review.txt

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 General Public License, Version
     2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "zlib
     License", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2
     or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "FSF
     Unlimited License [generated file]", "Historical Permission Notice and
     Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License v3.0 or later", "Khronos License", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD
     2-clause NetBSD License". 1567 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/86Box/licensecheck.txt

You can run licensecheck recursively on sources and add something like this
License: GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT AND BSD-3-Clause AND (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later) AND zlib AND LGPL-2.0-or-later

There are in sources also other licenses should be included in %license src/disk/minivhd/LICENSE and src/cpu/softfloat3e/COPYING.txt

Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
README.md README-UNIX-MODE-WITH-OSD.txt SECURITY.md can be added in %doc

Such comment can be added before License (verification required)

# The source tree contains files under various licenses.
# License breakdown based on licensecheck output:
# - GPL-2.0-only: COPYING, cassette.c, etc.
# - GPL-2.0-or-later: majority of project files (those without explicit headers)
# - BSD-3-Clause: nvr.c, crcspeed, softfloat3e, network, printer, qt_vulkanrenderer
# - MIT: cJSON.c, minitrace, minivhd
# - zlib: crcspeed.c
# - LGPL-2.0-or-later: fpu_trans.h, poly.h
# - (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later): lzf.h
# All other files without explicit license are covered by GPL-2.0-or-later.
License: GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later) AND MIT AND zlib AND LGPL-2.0-or-later

There were a few more licenses detected, so I added them too.

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/10261305/86Box-5.3-1.src.rpm
Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143688149

Created attachment 2134879 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10260534 to 10261313

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10261313
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2249395-86box/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10261313-86Box/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause AND MIT AND zlib AND Khronos'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

- Changed `zlib` to `Zlib` (case‑sensitive SPDX identifier).
- Removed `Khronos` because the Khronos License applies only to Vulkan headers used during build and not shipped in the binary package.
- Added `LGPL-2.0-or-later` (found in `fpu_trans.h`, `poly.h`).
- Added `(BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later)` for `lzf.h` (dual licensing).



# The source tree contains files under various licenses.
# License breakdown based on licensecheck output:
# - GPL-2.0-only: COPYING, cassette.c, some other files.
# - GPL-2.0-or-later: majority of project files (including those without explicit headers).
# - BSD-3-Clause: nvr.c, crcspeed (majority), isartc.c, fdc_pii15xb.c, network, printer, softfloat3e, ymfm, gamemode_client.h, munt/sha1.
# - MIT: cJSON, minitrace, minivhd, ayumi.
# - Zlib: crcspeed.c.
# - BSD-2-Clause: getline.c.
# - (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later): lzf.h.
# - LGPL-2.0-or-later: fpu_trans.h, poly.h.
# - Khronos License (for Vulkan headers) is not included because those headers are not shipped in the binary package.
License: GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND Zlib AND BSD-2-Clause AND (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later) AND LGPL-2.0-or-later




$ license-validate -v "GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND Zlib AND BSD-2-Clause AND (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later) AND LGPL-2.0-or-later"
License: GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND Zlib AND BSD-2-Clause AND (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later) AND LGPL-2.0-or-later
Approved license

$ 86Box
gamemodeauto: dlopen failed - libgamemode.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Should it also have 
Recommends: gamemode
?

Thank you, totally missed that!

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/86box/raw/master/f/86Box.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leo/86box/srpm-builds/10264081/86Box-5.3-1.src.rpm
Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143707567

[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.

For sources

 softfloat3e	src/cpu/softfloat3e/	BSD-3-Clause
 minivhd	src/disk/minivhd/	MIT
 lzf	        src/floppy/lzf/	BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later
 ayumi	        src/sound/ayumi/	MIT
 cJSON	        src/utils/cJSON.c	MIT
 minitrace	src/minitrace/	MIT
 munt (MT-32 emulator)	src/sound/munt/	LGPL-2.0-or-later (основная часть), MIT (sha1), BSD-3-Clause (srchelper)
 resid-fp (SID emulator)	src/sound/resid-fp/	GPL-2.0-only (COPYING)
 ymfm (YM FM sound cores)	src/sound/ymfm/	BSD-3-Clause

Can be added 

Provides: bundled(cJSON)
Provides: bundled(minivhd)
Provides: bundled(softfloat3e)
Provides: bundled(ayumi)
Provides: bundled(munt)
Provides: bundled(resid-fp)
Provides: bundled(ymfm)
Provides: bundled(lzf)
Provides: bundled(minitrace)

[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

Also comments for patches can be added but all MUST items are satisfied.

Package review completed. All issues have been addressed.

- License field is a valid SPDX expression (GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND Zlib AND BSD-2-Clause AND (BSD-2-Clause OR GPL-2.0-or-later) AND LGPL-2.0-or-later).
- Licensing breakdown is documented in the spec.
- No bundled libraries except those explicitly mentioned (cJSON, minitrace, minivhd, ayumi, softfloat3e, etc.) – these are covered by the License field.
- Build uses dynamic linking for zlib and Qt6.
- Documentation and license files are properly installed.
- Rpmlint warnings (no-man-page, old FSF address, non-UTF8 file, gethostbyname) are non-blocking; the non-UTF8 file can be fixed later if desired.





This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "zlib
     License", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2
     or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "FSF
     Unlimited License [generated file]", "Historical Permission Notice and
     Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License v3.0 or later", "Khronos License", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD
     2-clause NetBSD License". 1567 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/user/2249395-86Box/licensecheck.txt
[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 or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[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 8938 bytes in 3 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: 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]: 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: 86Box-5.3-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          86Box-5.3-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpzzvpzytj')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

86Box.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 86Box
86Box.spec: W: no-%check-section
86Box.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/86Box/COPYING
86Box.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/86Box/README-UNIX-MODE-WITH-OSD.txt
86Box.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/86Box
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 5 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.0 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: 86Box-debuginfo-5.3-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp90rsulkh')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 2

86Box.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 86Box
86Box.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/86Box/COPYING
86Box.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/86Box/README-UNIX-MODE-WITH-OSD.txt
86Box.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/86Box
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/86Box/86Box/archive/refs/tags/v5.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 758f45dcb7465d88a7a0ef9e7764ea63fac65830bc1398f5ad03f76bac77934b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 758f45dcb7465d88a7a0ef9e7764ea63fac65830bc1398f5ad03f76bac77934b


Requires
--------
86Box (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.10)(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6.10_PRIVATE_API)(64bit)
    libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXi.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libevdev.so.2()(64bit)
    libevdev.so.2(LIBEVDEV_1)(64bit)
    libfluidsynth.so.3()(64bit)
    libfreetype.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)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libopenal.so.1()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16()(64bit)
    libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit)
    librtmidi.so.6()(64bit)
    libserialport.so.0()(64bit)
    libslirp.so.0()(64bit)
    libslirp.so.0(SLIRP_4.0)(64bit)
    libslirp.so.0(SLIRP_4.1)(64bit)
    libslirp.so.0(SLIRP_4.9)(64bit)
    libsndfile.so.1()(64bit)
    libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon-x11.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon-x11.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit)
    libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.6.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
86Box:
    86Box
    86Box(x86-64)
    application()
    application(net.86box.86Box.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(net.86box.86Box.metainfo.xml)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2249395
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Python, Java, Ocaml, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH



**APPROVED**

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/86box

FEDORA-2026-23447a8342 (86box-5.3-2.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-23447a8342

FEDORA-2026-23447a8342 (86box-5.3-2.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.