Bug 2425235

Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

The description is supposed to be the description from the package spec. Please update your comment in your package review bugs accordingly.

Noted, I have updated all three descriptions.

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause
     License". 135 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/feathernotes/2425235-
     feathernotes/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime/packages,
     /usr/share/mime
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
     Note: Couldn't connect to Pagure, check manually
[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 24389 bytes in 4 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 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.
[-]: 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 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:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1280000 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: feathernotes-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          feathernotes-1.3.2-1.fc44.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/tmpdwefe8wp')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

feathernotes.src: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS')
feathernotes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS')
feathernotes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feathernotes
feathernotes.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/feathernotes/INSTALL
feathernotes.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension FeatherNotes-1.3.2.tar.xz
feathernotes.src: E: description-line-too-long * Support for rich text formatting, image embedding and inserting editable tables;
feathernotes.src: E: description-line-too-long * Other features that can be found in its settings, on its menus or when it is actually used.
feathernotes.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long * Support for rich text formatting, image embedding and inserting editable tables;
feathernotes.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long * Other features that can be found in its settings, on its menus or when it is actually used.
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: feathernotes-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc44.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/tmpxs11dfm8')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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

feathernotes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS')
feathernotes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feathernotes
feathernotes.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/feathernotes/INSTALL
feathernotes.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long * Support for rich text formatting, image embedding and inserting editable tables;
feathernotes.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long * Other features that can be found in its settings, on its menus or when it is actually used.
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/archive/V1.3.2.tar.gz#/FeatherNotes-1.3.2.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c6cbbbd8003cbc3a1e0c3728094d68f0d50d930b3401d1c1ce39a3d9d1be53f8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6cbbbd8003cbc3a1e0c3728094d68f0d50d930b3401d1c1ce39a3d9d1be53f8


Requires
--------
feathernotes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.10)(64bit)
    libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6PrintSupport.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6PrintSupport.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Svg.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Xml.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Xml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.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)
    libhunspell-1.7.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.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)



Provides
--------
feathernotes:
    application()
    application(feathernotes.desktop)
    feathernotes
    feathernotes(x86-64)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(feathernotes.metainfo.xml)
    mimehandler(text/feathernotes-fnx)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2425235
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, Python, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Consider changing
Source0:        %{url}/archive/V%{version}.tar.gz#/%{github_name}-%{version}.tar.xz
to
Source0:        %{url}/archive/V%{version}/%{github_name}-%{version}.tar.gz

or use the %forgesource macros
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control

b) Simplecrypt is under BSD-3-Clause
https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/blob/master/feathernotes/simplecrypt.cpp
https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/blob/master/feathernotes/simplecrypt.h
Please update license information accordingly
Upstream source is:
https://wiki.qt.io/Simple_encryption_with_SimpleCrypt

The name seems to be used elsewhere:
https://github.com/alessgorgo/SimpleCrypt
https://github.com/Nova-Squad/SimpleCrypt
https://github.com/andrewcooke/simple-crypt
Maybe it is possible to use an existing packaged encryption library instead? Raised
an issue upstream:
https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/issues/412

c) Please shorten lines in the description

d) Builds on all architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140407919

e) To ensure ownership of all directories, you may need to require shared-mime-info
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/shared-mime-info/shared-mime-info/

Thanks Benson, I have changed Source0 as you have suggested and updated the license metadata to include both the GPL and BSD-3-Clause licenses. I also shortened the lines in the description to 72 characters and added a dependnecy on shared-mime-info as requested.

Adding updated links so fedora-review tool can find them

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/basilcrow/feathernotes/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09952725-feathernotes/feathernotes.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/basilcrow/feathernotes/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09952725-feathernotes/feathernotes-1.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm

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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright*
     GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later". 135 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/feathernotes/2425235-
     feathernotes/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.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 24389 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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.
[!]: 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 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:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1280000 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: feathernotes-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          feathernotes-1.3.2-1.fc44.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/tmpm2cetd3x')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

feathernotes.src: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS')
feathernotes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS')
feathernotes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feathernotes
feathernotes.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/feathernotes/INSTALL
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: feathernotes-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc44.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/tmpof7tpp6x')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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

feathernotes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS')
feathernotes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feathernotes
feathernotes.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/feathernotes/INSTALL
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/archive/V1.3.2/FeatherNotes-1.3.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c6cbbbd8003cbc3a1e0c3728094d68f0d50d930b3401d1c1ce39a3d9d1be53f8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6cbbbd8003cbc3a1e0c3728094d68f0d50d930b3401d1c1ce39a3d9d1be53f8


Requires
--------
feathernotes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.10)(64bit)
    libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6PrintSupport.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6PrintSupport.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Svg.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Xml.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Xml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libc.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)
    libhunspell-1.7.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.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)
    shared-mime-info



Provides
--------
feathernotes:
    application()
    application(feathernotes.desktop)
    feathernotes
    feathernotes(x86-64)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(feathernotes.metainfo.xml)
    mimehandler(text/feathernotes-fnx)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2425235
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, Java, PHP, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Thanks for the fixes.
b) The use of SimpleCrypt may be problematic, see:
https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/issues/412
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/
Checking with Crypto team.

Latest commit fixes a problem with security of file encryption:
https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/issues/414

Fedora does have some restrictions on contributors - unclear if this is
primary software development origin or just packagers:
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/528

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #8)
> Latest commit fixes a problem with security of file encryption:
> https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/issues/414
> 
> Fedora does have some restrictions on contributors - unclear if this is
> primary software development origin or just packagers:
> https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/528

As far as I am aware, it only applies to direct contributors in Fedora.

It does not and cannot apply to public projects on the internet unless they are hosted by services in sanctioned regions.

Neal, thanks for removing the needinfo. As RedHat is the legally responsible organization, would be great to get a clarification from them.