Spec URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//quarter.spec SRPM URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//quarter-1.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Quarter is a light-weight glue library that provides seamless integration between Systems in Motions's Coin high-level 3D visualization library and Trolltech's Qt 2D user interface library. Qt and Coin is a perfect match since they are both open source, widely portable and easy to use. Quarter has evolved from Systems in Motion's own experiences using Coin and Qt together in our applications. The functionality in Quarter revolves around QuarterWidget, a subclass of QGLWidget. This widget provides functionality for rendering of Coin scenegraphs and translation of QEvents into SoEvents. Using this widget is as easy as using any other QWidget.
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39695697
- The doc should be noarch %package doc Summary: Development documentation for %{name} Requires: %{name}-devel% = %{version}-%{release} BuildArch: noarch %description doc %{summary}. - In order to avoid unannounced SONAME bump, we encourage not globbing the major SONAME version, be more specific instead. %{_libdir}/*.so.1* %{_libdir}/*.so.20 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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 "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 155 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/quarter/review-quarter/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 4 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1146880 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: quarter-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm quarter-devel-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm quarter-doc-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm quarter-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm quarter-debugsource-1.0.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm quarter-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm quarter.x86_64: W: infopage-not-compressed gz /usr/share/info/Quarter1 quarter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scenegraphs -> scene graphs, scene-graphs, scapegrace quarter.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://grey.colorado.edu/quarter/ <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: unable to get local issuer certificate (_ssl.c:1076)> quarter.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/designer/libQuarterWidgetPlugin.so quarter.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/quarter/AUTHORS quarter-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://grey.colorado.edu/quarter/ <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: unable to get local issuer certificate (_ssl.c:1076)> quarter-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation quarter-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://grey.colorado.edu/quarter/ <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: unable to get local issuer certificate (_ssl.c:1076)> quarter-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://grey.colorado.edu/quarter/ <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: unable to get local issuer certificate (_ssl.c:1076)> quarter-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://grey.colorado.edu/quarter/ <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: unable to get local issuer certificate (_ssl.c:1076)> quarter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scenegraphs -> scene graphs, scene-graphs, scapegrace quarter.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://grey.colorado.edu/quarter/ <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed: unable to get local issuer certificate (_ssl.c:1076)> 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > - The doc should be noarch > > %package doc > Summary: Development documentation for %{name} > Requires: %{name}-devel% = %{version}-%{release} > BuildArch: noarch Whoops! Good catch. > - In order to avoid unannounced SONAME bump, we encourage not globbing the > major SONAME version, be more specific instead. > > %{_libdir}/*.so.1* > %{_libdir}/*.so.20 I went a slightly different route with the soversion and added a global macro variable at the top of the spec file %{_libdir}/*.so.1* %{_libdir}/*.so.%{sover} Spec URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/quarter.spec SRPM URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/quarter-1.0.1-2.fc31.src.rpm * Thu Dec 19 2019 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069> - 1.0.1-2 - Update per reviewer feedback.
Package approved.
Thanks for the review!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/quarter
FEDORA-2020-248a7ebe2b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-248a7ebe2b
quarter-1.0.1-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-248a7ebe2b
quarter-1.0.1-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.