Bug 2281544

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7461872
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2281544-skladnik/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07461872-skladnik/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.

Should release be 0.5.2  see
https://download.kde.org/stable/skladnik/0.5.2/src/
Should the signature be verified?

That is a pre-Gear version.  This package is joining KDE Gear as of 24.05, for which the version packaged is the beta.

Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/skladnik.spec
SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/skladnik-24.05.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Description: Skladnik is an implementation of a Japanese warehouse keeper
game.  This replaces but does not conflict with "kboxpush" from kdegames3.
Fedora Account System Username: yselkowitz

Created attachment 2034993 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7461872 to 7486937

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7486937
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2281544-skladnik/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07486937-skladnik/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.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
  Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-newer AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-
  BY-SA-4.0 AND GFDL-1.2-or-later'.
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1


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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[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: "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Unknown or generated", "GNU
     General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License", "*No
     copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "Creative Commons Attribution-
     ShareAlike 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU Free
     Documentation License v1.2", "BSD 3-Clause License". 101 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora/2281544-skladnik/srpm-unpacked/review-
     skladnik/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.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/HTML/it,
     /usr/share/doc/HTML, /usr/share/doc/HTML/en, /usr/share/doc/HTML/uk,
     /usr/share/doc/HTML/ca, /usr/share/doc/HTML/es, /usr/share/doc/HTML/nl
[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.
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 122219 bytes in 14 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not the first command in %prep.
[ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: skladnik-24.05.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
          skladnik-debuginfo-24.05.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
          skladnik-debugsource-24.05.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
          skladnik-24.05.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
===================================================== rpmlint session starts =====================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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/tmpctk1y07i')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

skladnik.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer
skladnik.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer
skladnik-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer
skladnik-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer
=============== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: skladnik-debuginfo-24.05.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm
===================================================== rpmlint session starts =====================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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/tmpx6tr9iwe')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

skladnik-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer
================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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: 32, packages: 3

skladnik-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer
skladnik-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer
skladnik.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://kde.org/info/kde-gear-signing-keys.pgp :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 00bc4dd449f705b9d1c59b5e2737747cd840573a49cbe83e470f638bab167cb8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00bc4dd449f705b9d1c59b5e2737747cd840573a49cbe83e470f638bab167cb8
https://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/24.05.0/src/skladnik-24.05.0.tar.xz.sig :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : aa081f993b8e637e0a51b2df1b94fc73369c48715a825a9cedcb0c8e080598c9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aa081f993b8e637e0a51b2df1b94fc73369c48715a825a9cedcb0c8e080598c9
https://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/24.05.0/src/skladnik-24.05.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c22970dbedc9855195f07e87e554083cd0034c4142d37b209cdff45b964a7aff
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c22970dbedc9855195f07e87e554083cd0034c4142d37b209cdff45b964a7aff


Requires
--------
skladnik (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libKDEGames6.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6ConfigCore.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6ConfigWidgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6CoreAddons.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6Crash.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6DBusAddons.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6I18n.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6KIOCore.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6WidgetsAddons.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6XmlGui.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.7)(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)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

skladnik-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

skladnik-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
skladnik:
    application()
    application(org.kde.skladnik.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.kde.skladnik.metainfo.xml)
    skladnik
    skladnik(aarch-64)

skladnik-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    skladnik-debuginfo
    skladnik-debuginfo(aarch-64)

skladnik-debugsource:
    skladnik-debugsource
    skladnik-debugsource(aarch-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n skladnik
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Python, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) The %{kf6_stable} macro seemed not to work for me when using fedora review.
b) Can the signature be verified? Change:
Source :        https://download.kde.org/%{stable_kf6}/release-service/%{version}/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
to
Source0:        https://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/%{version}/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
Source1:        https://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/%{version}/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz.sig
Source2:        https://kde.org/info/kde-gear-signing-keys.pgp

also change:
# KDE Gear dependencies
BuildRequires:  cmake(KDEGames6)
to:
# KDE Gear dependencies
BuildRequires:  cmake(KDEGames6)
# Check Signature
BuildRequires:  gnupg2

and finally change:
%autosetup
to:
%autosetup
%{gpgverify} --keyring='%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%{SOURCE1}' --data='%{SOURCE0}'
c) Please change
License:        GPL-2.0-or-newer AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GFDL-1.2-or-later
to
License:        GPL-2.0-or-later AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GFDL-1.2-or-later
d) Is directory ownership a bug in fedora-review?

%stable_kf6 is provided by kf6-rpm-macros, and the macro is necessary for KDE packages so that the proper directory tree is chosen; depending on the version, it's not always "stable".

KDE SIG's automation which handles the simultaneous updates of Gear releases (of which this will become a part) does not handle GPG verification, and therefore other KDE packages do not do this either.

Ok. It built on koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118383747

Raised an issue to add GPG verification to KDE SIG's automation:
https://pagure.io/fedora-kde/SIG/issue/524
Happy to make this happen if it can be reviewed - this does not block
inclusion of this package.

For directory ownership, you may need to explicitly require kde-filesystem or kf6 or kf6-filesystem:
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/kf6/
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/kf6/kf6-filesystem/
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/kde-filesystem/kde-filesystem/
Maybe something else needs to be changed or it is a bug in the review tool?  This does block inclusion
of the package as directory ownership is a must if it is not a bug in the review tool.

An example build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/skladnik/build/7516365/

The directory ownership message is a bug in the review tool.  Since F40, kde-filesystem provides unversioned directories, each of kdeN/kfN-filesystem packages (which now contain only N-versioned directories) require kde-filesystem, and the various N-versioned libs/frameworks (which any KDE app ends up requiring by definition) depend on their corresponding N-versioned filesystem package.

Thanks, approved.

Please change
GPL-2.0-or-newer
to
GPL-2.0-or-later
on import.

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

Neal, does this require any further changes wrt possible trademarks?

As far as I can tell, it should not.