Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kde-style-breeze/kde-style-breeze.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kde-style-breeze/kde-style-breeze-5.18.5-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: KDE 4 version of Plasma 5 artwork, style and assets Fedora Account System Username: rdieter
Scratch build, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=54486199
> URL: https://cgit.kde.org/%{base_name}.git Working on an informal Review, and noticed the URL is out of date; cgit.kde.org is gone, replaced by invent.kde.org. See also https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kde@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/TKUPQGQVOOHL6LQI4TL545KGG4AFKABT/?sort=date
%changelog * Tue Nov 03 2020 Rex Dieter <rdieter> - 1:5.18.5-2 - use cmake-macros - update URL - drop use of %%base_name Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kde-style-breeze/kde-style-breeze.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/kde-style-breeze/kde-style-breeze-5.18.5-2.fc33.src.rpm
INFORMAL Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Unowned directories, perhaps those belong to a kde4 package? [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle, /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle/themes [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle/themes, /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle Potentially an issue, but I suspect this is okay and I just did not find kde/plugin rules, [ ]: 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. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 General Public License, Version 2", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Expat License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 917 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jimtahu/Projects/fedora/1892693-kde-style- breeze/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle, /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle/themes [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle/themes, /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [!]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: kde-style-breeze-5.18.5-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kde-style-breeze-debuginfo-5.18.5-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kde-style-breeze-debugsource-5.18.5-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kde-style-breeze-5.18.5-2.fc34.src.rpm kde-style-breeze.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided plasma-breeze-kde4 kde-style-breeze.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kde-style-breeze-debuginfo-5.18.5-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- kde-style-breeze-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/breeze <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> kde-style-breeze.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/breeze <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> kde-style-breeze.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided plasma-breeze-kde4 kde-style-breeze.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libbreezecommon4.so.5.18.5 /lib64/libm.so.6 kde-style-breeze.x86_64: W: no-documentation kde-style-breeze-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/breeze <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- kde-style-breeze: /usr/lib64/kde4/kstyle_breeze_config.so kde-style-breeze: /usr/lib64/kde4/plugins/styles/breeze.so Source checksums ---------------- http://download.kde.org/stable/plasma/5.18.5/breeze-5.18.5.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1d08dfd24df4a4fcacad1e3759e559e82f6014ba63dc75dc32a24de6cd133563 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1d08dfd24df4a4fcacad1e3759e559e82f6014ba63dc75dc32a24de6cd133563 Requires -------- kde-style-breeze (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libX11-xcb.so.1()(64bit) libbreezecommon4.so.5()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libkdecore.so.5()(64bit) libkdeui.so.5()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) kde-style-breeze-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kde-style-breeze-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- kde-style-breeze: kde-style-breeze kde-style-breeze(x86-64) libbreezecommon4.so.5()(64bit) plasma-breeze-kde4(x86-64) kde-style-breeze-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kde-style-breeze-debuginfo kde-style-breeze-debuginfo(x86-64) kde-style-breeze-debugsource: kde-style-breeze-debugsource kde-style-breeze-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1892693 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Java, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Unowned directories, perhaps those belong to a kde4 package? [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle, /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle/themes [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle/themes, /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle I believe this is provided by kdelibs: %dir %{_kde4_libdir}/kde4/ %dir %{_kde4_libdir}/kde4/plugins/ which is Required by the inclusion of the .so, so it should be ok as is. Package approved. 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 General Public License, Version 2", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Expat License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 917 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/kde- style-breeze/review-kde-style-breeze/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle, /usr/share/kde4/apps/kstyle/themes [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: 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: kde-style-breeze-5.18.5-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kde-style-breeze-debuginfo-5.18.5-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kde-style-breeze-debugsource-5.18.5-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm kde-style-breeze-5.18.5-2.fc34.src.rpm kde-style-breeze.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided plasma-breeze-kde4 kde-style-breeze.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30632 branches: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30633 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30634 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30635
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kde-style-breeze
FEDORA-2020-77585bf6b9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-77585bf6b9
FEDORA-2020-77585bf6b9 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-2020-77585bf6b9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-77585bf6b9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-77585bf6b9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.