Bug 2351398

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8750685
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351398-workrave/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08750685-workrave/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workrave, https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/workrave
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

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.

I'll just warn you that I got a lot of bug reports for this package because it has not been fully migrated to wayland, which is the default for our primary desktop environments (GNOME and KDE), as well as some of the newer ones.  The limitations of wayland (which are by design) for a program such as this severely limit its viable use cases.

(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #2)
> I'll just warn you that I got a lot of bug reports for this package because
> it has not been fully migrated to wayland, which is the default for our
> primary desktop environments (GNOME and KDE), as well as some of the newer
> ones.  The limitations of wayland (which are by design) for a program such
> as this severely limit its viable use cases.

Thanks for the warning. What bug report are you talking about? I see only two: icon-related and gnome-related, from which one should be solved by this bug. Beside I use it myself, and cannot complain that much.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2079723 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8750685 to 8751663

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8751663
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351398-workrave/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08751663-workrave/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workrave, https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/workrave
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

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.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2079903 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8751663 to 8756826

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8756826
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351398-workrave/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08756826-workrave/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workrave, https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/workrave
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

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.

Is there a reason for opening a review-request in bugzilla instead of pushing a PR to the existing package?
I see workrave already included in Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workrave
Am I missing something?

(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #9)
> Is there a reason for opening a review-request in bugzilla instead of
> pushing a PR to the existing package?
> I see workrave already included in Fedora:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workrave
> Am I missing something?

The reason is in the ticket at https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12630
Are you interested in reviewing it?

A few comments:
- Installation of one binary RPMs fails, apparently due to a typo:

Failed to resolve the transaction:
Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides cinamon needed by workrave-cinnamon-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64 from @commandline
You can try to add to command line:
  --skip-broken to skip uninstallable packages

- Rpmlint complains about a cross-directory hard link.  Maybe that should be a symlink instead?
workrave.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/workrave/images/workrave-icon-medium.png /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps/workrave.png

- Another rpmlint complaint; should this file be marked %conf at all?  It isn't really a configuration file, right?
workrave.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/xdg/autostart/org.workrave.Workrave.desktop

Thanks for taking the time to look into this.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #11)
> A few comments:
> - Installation of one binary RPMs fails, apparently due to a typo:
> 
> Failed to resolve the transaction:
> Problem: conflicting requests
>   - nothing provides cinamon needed by
> workrave-cinnamon-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64 from @commandline
> You can try to add to command line:
>   --skip-broken to skip uninstallable packages

I fixed the typo.

> - Rpmlint complains about a cross-directory hard link.  Maybe that should be
> a symlink instead?
> workrave.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link
> /usr/share/workrave/images/workrave-icon-medium.png
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps/workrave.png

Done.

> - Another rpmlint complaint; should this file be marked %conf at all?  It
> isn't really a configuration file, right?
> workrave.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
> /etc/xdg/autostart/org.workrave.Workrave.desktop

I removed the %conf prefix.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2083429 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8756826 to 8861465

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8861465
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351398-workrave/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08861465-workrave/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workrave, https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/workrave
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

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.

I will take this review.  I will probably have a simple C++ header-only package that will need to be reviewed next week.  Can I ask you to take a look at it when it is ready?

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #15)
> I will take this review.  I will probably have a simple C++ header-only
> package that will need to be reviewed next week.  Can I ask you to take a
> look at it when it is ready?

Sure.

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

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

Issues:
=======
I think the License field is incomplete.
- libs/config/include/config/IConfiguratorListener.hh is GPL-2.0-or-later.  You
  might want to tell upstream that some text rewriter mangled the license text.
  All instances of "ion" have been converted to "or", resulting in the license
  being offered by the "Free Software Foundator", and you can use, "at your
  optor", "any later versor". :-)
- ui/app/toolkits/gtkmm/platforms/unix/gtktrayicon.{c,h} are LGPL-2.1-or-later
- ui/app/toolkits/gtkmm/platforms/unix/protocols/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml
  is HPND

The directory /usr/share/mate-panel/ui is not owned by any package.  The
mate-panel package owns /usr/share/mate-panel, but not the ui subdirectory.

The workrave-mate package installs %{_libdir}/mate-applets/workrave-applet,
but does not have "Requires: mate-applets", which is the package that owns the
%{_libdir}/mate-applets directory.

The workrave-cinnamon package contains no binary files.  Should it be noarch?

The workrave-cinnamon package owns %{_datadir}/cinnamon and
%{_datadir}/cinnamon/applets, but shouldn't, since those directories are owned
by the cinnamon package, which workrave-cinnamon Requires.

The workrave-gnome package owns %{_datadir}/gnome-shell and
%{_datadir}/gnome-shell/extensions, but shouldn't, since those directories are
owned by the gnome-shell package, which workrave-gnome Requires.

There is no comment justifying the patch.  This is a SHOULD item, not a MUST,
so I will not insist on it.

Please consider making a noarch package, required by the main package, to
contain the contents of %{_datadir}.  This is another SHOULD item, so I will
not insist on it either.

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0",
     "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License
     v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "GNU General Public
     License", "*No copyright* FSF Unlimited License", "*No copyright* GNU
     General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
     Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
     Public License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later",
     "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP
     License (legal disclaimer)". 484 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/jamesjer/2351398-workrave/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/mate-panel/ui
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/mate-applets,
     /usr/share/mate-panel/ui
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/cinnamon(cinnamon), /usr/share/cinnamon/applets(cinnamon),
     /usr/share/gnome-shell(wike, epiphany, gnome-clocks, gnome-calendar,
     gnome-shell, bijiben, gnome-contacts, gnome-weather, gnome-calculator,
     gnote, seahorse, gnome-photos, nautilus, gnome-boxes, gnome-terminal),
     /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions(gnome-shell)
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 38252 bytes in 3 files.
[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 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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1740800 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-sounds-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          workrave-cinnamon-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-gnome-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-gnome-flashback-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-mate-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-xfce-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpgyft32ue')]
checks: 32, packages: 8

workrave.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/org.workrave.Workrave.desktop
workrave.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary workrave
workrave-cinnamon.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-gnome.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-gnome-flashback.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-mate.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-sounds.noarch: W: no-documentation
workrave-xfce.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-cinnamon.x86_64: E: no-binary
 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings, 134 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.9 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: workrave-debuginfo-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-xfce-debuginfo-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-mate-debuginfo-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-gnome-flashback-debuginfo-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          workrave-gnome-debuginfo-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp0yjt27fi')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 36 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 12

workrave.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/org.workrave.Workrave.desktop
workrave.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary workrave
workrave-sounds.noarch: W: no-documentation
workrave-gnome.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-mate.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-cinnamon.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-xfce.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-gnome-flashback.x86_64: W: no-documentation
workrave-cinnamon.x86_64: E: no-binary
 12 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings, 172 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.5 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
workrave-gnome-flashback: /usr/lib64/gnome-panel/modules/libworkrave-applet.so
workrave-xfce: /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libworkrave-plugin.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/rcaelers/workrave/archive/v1_11_0_rc_1/workrave-v1_11_0_rc_1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 61f2bcf09497d6f74ce4b5d4c91c0baf9e2441bf4ee959e9de28584d8c561867
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 61f2bcf09497d6f74ce4b5d4c91c0baf9e2441bf4ee959e9de28584d8c561867


Requires
--------
workrave (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dbus-common
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXss.so.1()(64bit)
    libXtst.so.6()(64bit)
    libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit)
    libayatana-appindicator3.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libcairomm-1.0.so.1()(64bit)
    libdbusmenu-glib.so.4()(64bit)
    libfmt.so.11()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdkmm-3.0.so.1()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgiomm-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtkmm-3.0.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangomm-1.4.so.1()(64bit)
    libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0()(64bit)
    libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit)
    libpulse.so.0()(64bit)
    libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit)
    libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libspdlog.so.1.15()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(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)
    workrave-sounds

workrave-sounds (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

workrave-cinnamon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cinnamon
    workrave(x86-64)

workrave-gnome (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gnome-shell
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    workrave(x86-64)

workrave-gnome-flashback (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gnome-panel
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgnome-panel.so.3()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libworkrave-private-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    workrave(x86-64)

workrave-mate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libmate-panel-applet-4.so.1()(64bit)
    libworkrave-private-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    mate-panel
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    workrave(x86-64)

workrave-xfce (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
    libworkrave-private-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libxfce4panel-2.0.so.4()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    workrave(x86-64)
    xfce4-panel



Provides
--------
workrave:
    application()
    application(org.workrave.Workrave.desktop)
    libworkrave-private-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.workrave.Workrave.metainfo.xml)
    workrave
    workrave(x86-64)

workrave-sounds:
    workrave-sounds

workrave-cinnamon:
    workrave-cinnamon
    workrave-cinnamon(x86-64)

workrave-gnome:
    libworkrave-gtk4-private-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    workrave-gnome
    workrave-gnome(x86-64)

workrave-gnome-flashback:
    libworkrave-applet.so()(64bit)
    workrave-gnome-flashback
    workrave-gnome-flashback(x86-64)

workrave-mate:
    workrave-mate
    workrave-mate(x86-64)

workrave-xfce:
    libworkrave-plugin.so()(64bit)
    workrave-xfce
    workrave-xfce(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2351398 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, Python, fonts, Perl, Ruby, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

(In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jerry James from comment #15)
> > I will take this review.  I will probably have a simple C++ header-only
> > package that will need to be reviewed next week.  Can I ask you to take a
> > look at it when it is ready?
> 
> Sure.

I went ahead and polished it up the rest of the way today.  When you get a chance, a review of bug 2357569 would be much appreciated.

Thanks for giving the explanations on how to fix the issues.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #17)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> I think the License field is incomplete.
> - libs/config/include/config/IConfiguratorListener.hh is GPL-2.0-or-later. 
> You
>   might want to tell upstream that some text rewriter mangled the license
> text.
>   All instances of "ion" have been converted to "or", resulting in the
> license
>   being offered by the "Free Software Foundator", and you can use, "at your
>   optor", "any later versor". :-)
> - ui/app/toolkits/gtkmm/platforms/unix/gtktrayicon.{c,h} are
> LGPL-2.1-or-later
> -
> ui/app/toolkits/gtkmm/platforms/unix/protocols/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.
> xml
>   is HPND

Done and reported at https://github.com/rcaelers/workrave/issues/610.

> The directory /usr/share/mate-panel/ui is not owned by any package.  The
> mate-panel package owns /usr/share/mate-panel, but not the ui subdirectory.

Done.

> The workrave-mate package installs %{_libdir}/mate-applets/workrave-applet,
> but does not have "Requires: mate-applets", which is the package that owns
> the
> %{_libdir}/mate-applets directory.

Done.

> The workrave-cinnamon package contains no binary files.  Should it be noarch?

If you know how to do it, because I don't know how to require an arch package (cinnamon in this case) from a noarch package.

> The workrave-cinnamon package owns %{_datadir}/cinnamon and
> %{_datadir}/cinnamon/applets, but shouldn't, since those directories are
> owned
> by the cinnamon package, which workrave-cinnamon Requires.

Done.

> The workrave-gnome package owns %{_datadir}/gnome-shell and
> %{_datadir}/gnome-shell/extensions, but shouldn't, since those directories
> are
> owned by the gnome-shell package, which workrave-gnome Requires.

Done.

> There is no comment justifying the patch.  This is a SHOULD item, not a MUST,
> so I will not insist on it.

I added the comment.

> Please consider making a noarch package, required by the main package, to
> contain the contents of %{_datadir}.  This is another SHOULD item, so I will
> not insist on it either.

Done.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2083528 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8861465 to 8863074

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8863074
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351398-workrave/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08863074-workrave/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/workrave, https://src.fedoraproject.org/flatpaks/workrave
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

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.

That looks pretty good.  Just a couple more items.

To require an architecture-specific package from a noarch package, just omit "%{?_isa}".  In this case, the workrave-cinnamon package would have these lines:

Requires:      %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
BuildArch:     noarch

In "%files mate", there are two lines:
%{_datadir}/mate-panel/ui
%{_datadir}/mate-panel/ui/workrave-menu.xml

The first includes the entire ui directory, including workrave-menu.xml, so rpmbuild now warns that workrave-menu.xml is listed twice.  You should either remove the second line, or add %dir to the first line.

These are both very simple changes that I trust you to make when you import the package.  This package is APPROVED.

Thanks for the review. I fixed the last two items.

As for importing the package, I believe, that now I still have to wait for https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12630

[fedora-review-service-build]

FEDORA-2025-2d5726abb8 (workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2d5726abb8

FEDORA-2025-d611c8d114 (workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d611c8d114

FEDORA-2025-85867bd98f (workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-85867bd98f

FEDORA-2025-d611c8d114 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-d611c8d114`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d611c8d114

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

FEDORA-2025-85867bd98f has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-85867bd98f`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-85867bd98f

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

FEDORA-2025-2d5726abb8 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-2d5726abb8`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2d5726abb8

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

FEDORA-2025-7547614280 (workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7547614280

FEDORA-2025-7547614280 (workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-85867bd98f (workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-2d5726abb8 (workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-d611c8d114 (workrave-1.11.0~rc.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.