Bug 2385230

Looks like the parent dirs in these %files paths are unowned?

%{mingw32_datadir}/appstream/appstream.conf
%{mingw32_datadir}/gettext/its/metainfo.*
%{mingw32_datadir}/installed-tests/appstream/metainfo-validate.test

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elmarco/ironrdp-fedora/refs/heads/master/mingw-appstream/mingw-appstream.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/elmarco/test/srpm-builds/09439644/mingw-appstream-1.0.6-1.src.rpm
Description: Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream database
Fedora Account System Username: elmarco

rawhide build fails atm:
Failed to resolve the transaction:
Problem 1: package mingw64-pango-1.56.4-2.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw64(libharfbuzz-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides mingw64(icuuc76.dll) needed by mingw64-harfbuzz-11.4.1-2.fc44.noarch from fedora
 Problem 2: package mingw32-pango-1.56.4-2.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw32(libharfbuzz-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides mingw32(icuuc76.dll) needed by mingw32-harfbuzz-11.4.1-2.fc44.noarch from fedora
 Problem 3: package mingw32-librsvg2-2.57.1-6.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw32(libpango-1.0-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mingw32-librsvg2-2.57.1-6.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw32(libpangocairo-1.0-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mingw32-pango-1.56.4-2.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw32(libharfbuzz-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides mingw32(icuuc76.dll) needed by mingw32-harfbuzz-11.4.1-2.fc44.noarch from fedora
 Problem 4: package mingw64-librsvg2-2.57.1-6.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw64(libpango-1.0-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mingw64-librsvg2-2.57.1-6.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw64(libpangocairo-1.0-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package mingw64-pango-1.56.4-2.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw64(libharfbuzz-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides mingw64(icuuc76.dll) needed by mingw64-harfbuzz-11.4.1-2.fc44.noarch from fedora

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9439675
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2385230-mingw-appstream/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09439675-mingw-appstream/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Hm yes looks like mingw-harfbuzz didn't pick up the new icu when it was rebuilt, resubmitted now.

- Please check whether the license breakdown is indeed complete, see below.
- These directories are still unowned:
    /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests,
    /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests
- Some rpmlint warnings regarding incorrect FSF addresses may be reported upstream

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

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



===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "*No copyright* FSF All Permissive License", "GNU Free
     Documentation License v1.3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
     or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License,
     Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2",
     "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 328 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/sandro/Desktop/2385230-mingw-
     appstream/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
     root/mingw/share/installed-tests,
     /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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]: 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 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mingw32-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          mingw64-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          mingw64-appstream-debuginfo-1.0.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          mingw-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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/tmprqc_v514')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

mingw32-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/appstream/as-content-rating.h
mingw32-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw32-appstream/COPYING
mingw64-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw64-appstream/COPYING
mingw64-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/appstream/as-content-rating.h
mingw-appstream.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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: 3

mingw64-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw64-appstream/COPYING
mingw64-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/appstream/as-content-rating.h
mingw32-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/appstream/as-content-rating.h
mingw32-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw32-appstream/COPYING



Source checksums
----------------
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/releases/AppStream-1.0.6.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : db4439db6a33de3ca1041473501610844ddf1b72ae23016c05242c681c380b4d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db4439db6a33de3ca1041473501610844ddf1b72ae23016c05242c681c380b4d


Requires
--------
mingw32-appstream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mingw32(advapi32.dll)
    mingw32(kernel32.dll)
    mingw32(libappstream-5.dll)
    mingw32(libcurl-4.dll)
    mingw32(libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll)
    mingw32(libgio-2.0-0.dll)
    mingw32(libglib-2.0-0.dll)
    mingw32(libgobject-2.0-0.dll)
    mingw32(libintl-8.dll)
    mingw32(libwinpthread-1.dll)
    mingw32(libxml2-2.dll)
    mingw32(libxmlb-2.dll)
    mingw32(libyaml-0-2.dll)
    mingw32(libzstd.dll)
    mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
    mingw32-crt
    mingw32-filesystem
    mingw32-pkg-config

mingw64-appstream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mingw64(advapi32.dll)
    mingw64(kernel32.dll)
    mingw64(libappstream-5.dll)
    mingw64(libcurl-4.dll)
    mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll)
    mingw64(libgio-2.0-0.dll)
    mingw64(libglib-2.0-0.dll)
    mingw64(libgobject-2.0-0.dll)
    mingw64(libintl-8.dll)
    mingw64(libxml2-2.dll)
    mingw64(libxmlb-2.dll)
    mingw64(libyaml-0-2.dll)
    mingw64(libzstd.dll)
    mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
    mingw64-crt
    mingw64-filesystem
    mingw64-pkg-config

mingw64-appstream-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
mingw32-appstream:
    mingw32(libappstream-5.dll)
    mingw32-appstream
    mingw32-pkgconfig(appstream)

mingw64-appstream:
    mingw64(libappstream-5.dll)
    mingw64-appstream
    mingw64-pkgconfig(appstream)

mingw64-appstream-debuginfo:
    mingw64-appstream-debuginfo



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2385230
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, R, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Perl, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #5)
> - Please check whether the license breakdown is indeed complete, see below.

I based it on appstream.spec
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/appstream/blob/rawhide/f/appstream.spec

Apparently, the docs/ use different licenses (GFDL & CCSA), but are not shipped in Fedora.

Then I think https://github.com/ximion/appstream/blob/main/src/as-spdx-data.h might confuse review tool.

> - These directories are still unowned:
>     /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests,
>     /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests

those shouldn't be owned imho, there are shared directories

> - Some rpmlint warnings regarding incorrect FSF addresses may be reported
> upstream
> 

https://github.com/ximion/appstream/pull/726

> > - These directories are still unowned:
> >     /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests,
> >     /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests

> those shouldn't be owned imho, there are shared directories

Currently I only see one other package installing files to that directory, i.e. mingw-json-glib, which owns the directory.
So I suggest either mingw-appstream co-owns it, or we move ownership to mingw-filesystem.

(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #7)
> > > - These directories are still unowned:
> > >     /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests,
> > >     /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests
> 
> > those shouldn't be owned imho, there are shared directories
> 
> Currently I only see one other package installing files to that directory,
> i.e. mingw-json-glib, which owns the directory.
> So I suggest either mingw-appstream co-owns it, or we move ownership to
> mingw-filesystem.

How to do that?, it doesn't seem to own any of the subdir from a first look.

If you do

%files
%{mingw32_datadir}/installed-tests/

the dir and all children are owned.

If you do

%files
%dir %{mingw32_datadir}/installed-tests/

just the dir, but not the children are owned.

If you do

%files
%{mingw32_datadir}/installed-tests/*

only the children, but not the dir are owned.

Should all be good now with [1], approved.

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-filesystem/pull-request/15

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-appstream

FEDORA-2025-9e908068bd (mingw-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9e908068bd

FEDORA-2025-9e908068bd (mingw-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.