Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//kdiskmark.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//kdiskmark-1.6.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: KDiskMark is an HDD and SSD benchmark tool with a very friendly graphical user interface. KDiskMark with its presets and powerful GUI calls Flexible I/O Tester and handles the output to provide an easy to view and interpret comprehensive benchmark result.
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52742543
Fedora review finds this problems: [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/20x20, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/20x20/apps [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/20x20, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/20x20/apps
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/kdiskmark/fedora-33-x86_64/01698174-kdiskmark/kdiskmark.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/atim/kdiskmark/fedora-33-x86_64/01698174-kdiskmark/kdiskmark-1.6.2-2.fc33.src.rpm
All seems to be fine. Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/kdiskmark/translations/kdiskmark_cs_CZ.qm See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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]: 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". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zawertun/1884999-kdiskmark/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]: 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]: 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. [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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [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]: 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: kdiskmark-1.6.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kdiskmark-debuginfo-1.6.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kdiskmark-debugsource-1.6.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kdiskmark-1.6.2-2.fc34.src.rpm kdiskmark.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distros -> bistros, distress kdiskmark.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kdiskmark kdiskmark.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distros -> bistros, distress 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kdiskmark-debuginfo-1.6.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. kdiskmark.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distros -> bistros, distress kdiskmark.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/JonMagon/KDiskMark <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> kdiskmark.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kdiskmark warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. kdiskmark-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/JonMagon/KDiskMark <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. kdiskmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/JonMagon/KDiskMark <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/JonMagon/KDiskMark/archive/1.6.2/kdiskmark-1.6.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dbb6fb1f60935531f4cb3a442074fba7fd94bb513d9d7020ecb40bbe9b0fb15f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dbb6fb1f60935531f4cb3a442074fba7fd94bb513d9d7020ecb40bbe9b0fb15f Requires -------- kdiskmark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fio(x86-64) hicolor-icon-theme libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) kdiskmark-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kdiskmark-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- kdiskmark: application() application(kdiskmark.desktop) kdiskmark kdiskmark(x86-64) kdiskmark-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kdiskmark-debuginfo kdiskmark-debuginfo(x86-64) kdiskmark-debugsource: kdiskmark-debugsource kdiskmark-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 1884999 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, R, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kdiskmark
FEDORA-2020-861145dcc8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-861145dcc8
FEDORA-2020-60cbd71993 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-60cbd71993
FEDORA-2020-632391c21d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-632391c21d
FEDORA-2020-861145dcc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-861145dcc8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-861145dcc8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-632391c21d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-632391c21d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-632391c21d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-60cbd71993 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-632391c21d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-861145dcc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.