Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/QSyncthingTray.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/QSyncthingTray-0.5.8-2.fc26.src.rpm Description: A Traybar Application for Syncthing written in C++. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21377718
Hello, - It seems that the license is LGPL3 not GPL3 https://github.com/sieren/QSyncthingTray/blob/master/LICENSE.txt I'll review it later when Github servers are not down :| But the SPEC looks fine.
Everything else is good, so just fix the license and I'll accept your package. 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "LGPL (v3.0 or later)", "GPL (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/QSyncthingTray/review- QSyncthingTray/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in QSyncthingTray-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: QSyncthingTray-0.5.8-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm QSyncthingTray-debuginfo-0.5.8-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm QSyncthingTray-0.5.8-2.fc28.src.rpm QSyncthingTray.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/sieren/QSyncthingTray <urlopen error timed out> QSyncthingTray.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib QSyncthingTray.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id QSyncthingTray.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id QSyncthingTray.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary QSyncthingTray QSyncthingTray.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/sieren/QSyncthingTray/archive/0.5.8/QSyncthingTray-0.5.8.tar.gz <urlopen error timed out> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
The sources contain what looks like a copylib in sources/contrib, which is licensed under a GPLv3+ license - this (as far as I know) forces the whole project to be "GPLv3+". I might be wrong, though.
I don't know for sure, please ask a FE:Legal person or ask on fedora-devel.
Ok, blocking FE-Legal for final confirmation on the license part - just to make sure / be safe. The situation is: - QSyncthingTray sources are licensed LGPLv3+ - one copylib (?) in sources/contrib is licensed GPLv3+ My opinion is that - since the compiled copylib (GPLv3+) is linked into the final binary - the resulting license must be GPLv3+ (or at least "LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+", but that doesn't look right). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I've lost interest in maintaining an official package of QST, since I have discovered that it has some issues on fedora - and I'm not even using it myself. For now, it'll continue to be available via COPR for the ~one person who uses it. Sorry about the noise.