Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/raineforest/cutelyst/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01126057-simple-mail/simple-mail.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/raineforest/cutelyst/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01126057-simple-mail/simple-mail-1.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: simple-mail is a small library writen for Qt 5 (C++11 version) that allows application to send complex emails (plain text, html, attachments, inline files, etc.) using the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP). Fedora Account System Username: raineforest This is my first package. I need a sponsor as part of this review, please. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39459187
Taking this review.
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1780882-simple-mail/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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 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: simple-mail-1.4.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm simple-mail-devel-1.4.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm simple-mail-debuginfo-1.4.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm simple-mail-debugsource-1.4.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm simple-mail-1.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm simple-mail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US writen -> write, written, writes simple-mail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML simple-mail.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog simple-mail-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsimplemail -> implementable simple-mail-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog simple-mail-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation simple-mail-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog simple-mail-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog simple-mail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US writen -> write, written, writes simple-mail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML simple-mail.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: simple-mail-debuginfo-1.4.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm simple-mail-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- simple-mail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US writen -> write, written, writes simple-mail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML simple-mail.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog simple-mail.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/cutelyst/simple-mail <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> simple-mail-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog simple-mail-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/cutelyst/simple-mail <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> simple-mail-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsimplemail -> implementable simple-mail-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog simple-mail-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/cutelyst/simple-mail <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> simple-mail-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation simple-mail-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog simple-mail-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/cutelyst/simple-mail <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cutelyst/simple-mail/archive/v1.4.0/simple-mail-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : df5aab66900ed5a897cdf1225ec1643412ccb382a89c7fb03fe7c6d34d4b89c3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : df5aab66900ed5a897cdf1225ec1643412ccb382a89c7fb03fe7c6d34d4b89c3 Requires -------- simple-mail (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.12)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) simple-mail-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libSimpleMailQt5.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(QtCore) simple-mail(x86-64) simple-mail-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): simple-mail-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- simple-mail: libSimpleMailQt5.so.0()(64bit) simple-mail simple-mail(x86-64) simple-mail-devel: cmake(simplemailqt5) pkgconfig(simplemail-qt5) simple-mail-devel simple-mail-devel(x86-64) simple-mail-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) simple-mail-debuginfo simple-mail-debuginfo(x86-64) simple-mail-debugsource: simple-mail-debugsource simple-mail-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1780882 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The only relevant issue I see in the packaging is that the changelog doesn't fully follow the preferred format: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs That can be fixed on import. PACKAGE APPROVED.
I have sponsored you into the packager group. Congratulations and welcome fellow packager!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/simple-mail
FEDORA-2019-7d7731c7d4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7d7731c7d4
simple-mail-1.4.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
simple-mail-1.4.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6b362887ff
simple-mail-1.4.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.