Bug 2403330

Summary: Review Request: kretro - Play your favorite games across Plasma platforms
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Steve Cossette <farchord>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora>
Status: ASSIGNED --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: AutomationTriaged
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
URL: https://apps.kde.org/kretro/
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Steve Cossette 2025-10-12 02:43:34 UTC
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kretro/kretro.spec
SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kretro/kretro-0.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm

Description:
Play your favorite games across Plasma platforms.

Fedora Account System Username: farchord

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-20 15:55:42 UTC
Hello,
I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been
reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package
builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer.

If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my
apologies, feel free to close it.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-20 16:03:14 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9820257
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2403330-kretro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09820257-kretro/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.

Comment 3 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2025-11-23 16:17:28 UTC
> License:        FSFAP AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT AND CC0-1.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND Unlicense AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-only AND BSD-3-Clause AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later
Please add a comment describing the licensing breakdown.

> desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/org.kde.kretro.desktop
> appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml
Arguably, this should be moved from %install to %check.

Also, rpmlint says:
> E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt
> E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/LGPL-2.0-or-later.txt
> E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/LGPL-2.1-only.txt
Might be good to report this upstream.

Comment 4 Steve Cossette 2025-11-26 01:35:28 UTC
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #3)
> > License:        FSFAP AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT AND CC0-1.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND Unlicense AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-only AND BSD-3-Clause AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later
> Please add a comment describing the licensing breakdown.
So I should include the breakdown/output from reuse? I can, but it can be quite lengthy and, as it's a brand new piece of software it is subject to changes (It's highly likely)...

> > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/org.kde.kretro.desktop
> > appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml
> Arguably, this should be moved from %install to %check.
Yeah it can be in either.

> Also, rpmlint says:
> > E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt
> > E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/LGPL-2.0-or-later.txt
> > E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/LGPL-2.1-only.txt
> Might be good to report this upstream.
Regarding this one... I downloaded fresh licenses using reuse, and the licenses were identical. Guessing the lint errors are wrong?