*** Bug 1917279 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

It looks like this package bypassed the review process and was already created
in dist-git: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt6-qtsvg. I’m utterly confused
by that.

Anyway, here’s how I would have reviewed it:

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======

- License is incorrect:

    # See LGPL_EXCEPTIONS.txt, LICENSE.GPL3, respectively, for exception details
    License: LGPLv2 with exceptions or GPLv3 with exceptions

  The file LGPL_EXCEPTIONS.txt does not exist, and the file LICENSE.GPL3 does
  not contain the exceptions. Furthermore, dist/changes-5.7.0 says:

    ****************************************************************************
    *                          Important License Changes                       *
    ****************************************************************************

      This module is no longer available under LGPLv2.1. The libraries are
      now available under the following licenses:
        * Commercial License
        * GNU General Public License v2.0 (LICENSE.GPL2) and later
        * GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 (LICENSE.LGPL3)

      The tools are now available under the following licenses:
        * Commercial License
        * GNU General Public License 3.0 (LICENSE.GPL3) with exceptions
          described in The Qt Company GPL Exception 1.0 (LICENSE.GPL3-EXCEPT)

  It looks like this package contains only “libraries” and no “tools.”
  Therefore, the license should be:

    # See dist/changes-5.7.0 for license details.
    License: LGPLv3 or GPLv2+

  and instead of

    %license LICENSE.*

  there should be only the relevant license files, plus the changelog entry that explains the licensing:

    %license dist/changes-5.7.0 LICENSE.GPL3 LICENSE.

  If you choose to package the examples, the subpackage containing them would have other licenses:

    License: BSD and GFDL

    %license LICENSE.FDL

  and you should query upstream to include the relevant BSD license in a
  separate file as well.

- GPL exception “The Qt Company GPL Exception 1.0” is not listed in
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses.
  If it were applicable, I would ask you to please clear it by emailing
  legal.org, or finding a past decision on it, and link to
  the result in a comment. However, since there are no “tools,” it seems this
  exception does not apply anyway.

- All shared libraries define rpath $ORIGIN; see rpmlint output.

- Note: No known owner of
  /usr/lib64/cmake/Qt6BuildInternals/StandaloneTests,
  /usr/share/qt6/modules

  Maybe qt6-qtbase should create and own these?

- The package Provides: the shared libraries corresponding to the Qt plugins;
  these must be filtered out since, as far as I can tell, they are not
  accessible through the system library paths. See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/.

- Since I am pretty sure you are not trying to support EPEL7, you should remove
  %ldconfig_scriptlets.


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
     Note: See rpmlint output

     All shared libraries define rpath $ORIGIN.

[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.

     Exceptions are QT plugins, which do need to be unversioned.

[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)

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.

     Note that I could not find a decision on the record about The Qt Company
     GPL Exception 1.0, but it does not appear to apply to any portion of this
     package.

[!]: 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 Free Documentation License,
     Version 1.3", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public
     License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public
     License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "NTP License (legal
     disclaimer)", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 GNU
     General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 257 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/1917278-qt6-qtsvg/licensecheck.txt

     See Issues.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of
     /usr/lib64/cmake/Qt6BuildInternals/StandaloneTests,
     /usr/share/qt6/modules
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/qt6/modules,
     /usr/lib64/cmake/Qt6BuildInternals/StandaloneTests
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

     (except as otherwise noted)

[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 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 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

     Qt Plugins should not be in Provides; see
     https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/.

[?]: 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.

     See tests/README; requirements for the tests are impractical.

[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: qt6-qtsvg-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          qt6-qtsvg-devel-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          qt6-qtsvg-debugsource-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          qt6-qtsvg-6.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 6.0.0 ['6.0.0-1.fc34', '6.0.0-1']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libQt6Svg.so.6.0.0 ['$ORIGIN']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6.0.0 ['$ORIGIN']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/iconengines/libqsvgicon.so ['$ORIGIN/../../../']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/imageformats/libqsvg.so ['$ORIGIN/../../../']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: no-documentation
qt6-qtsvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
qt6-qtsvg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
qt6-qtsvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 6.0.0 ['6.0.0-1.fc34', '6.0.0-1']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libQt6Svg.so.6.0.0 ['$ORIGIN']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6.0.0 ['$ORIGIN']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/iconengines/libqsvgicon.so ['$ORIGIN/../../../']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/imageformats/libqsvg.so ['$ORIGIN/../../../']
qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
qt6-qtsvg: /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/iconengines/libqsvgicon.so
qt6-qtsvg: /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/imageformats/libqsvg.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/6.0/6.0.0/submodules/qtsvg-everywhere-src-6.0.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9703c9a69e21ad373fb52d0107338da7ef0a46966f69107b0d879e9c366dd91b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9703c9a69e21ad373fb52d0107338da7ef0a46966f69107b0d879e9c366dd91b


Requires
--------
qt6-qtsvg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.0)(64bit)
    libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6_PRIVATE_API)(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6_PRIVATE_API)(64bit)
    libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6_PRIVATE_API)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    qt6-qtbase(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

qt6-qtsvg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6()(64bit)
    qt6-qtbase-devel(x86-64)
    qt6-qtsvg(x86-64)

qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

qt6-qtsvg-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
qt6-qtsvg:
    libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libqsvg.so()(64bit)
    libqsvgicon.so()(64bit)
    qt6-qtsvg
    qt6-qtsvg(x86-64)

qt6-qtsvg-devel:
    cmake(Qt6QSvgIconPlugin)
    cmake(Qt6QSvgPlugin)
    cmake(Qt6Svg)
    cmake(Qt6SvgWidgets)
    cmake(QtSvgTests)
    cmake(qt6qsvgiconplugin)
    cmake(qt6qsvgplugin)
    cmake(qt6svg)
    cmake(qt6svgwidgets)
    cmake(qtsvgtests)
    qt6-qtsvg-devel
    qt6-qtsvg-devel(x86-64)

qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo
    qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo(x86-64)

qt6-qtsvg-debugsource:
    qt6-qtsvg-debugsource
    qt6-qtsvg-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1917278
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, R, Java, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to code from comment #2)
> It looks like this package bypassed the review process and was already
> created
> in dist-git: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt6-qtsvg. I’m utterly
> confused
> by that.
> 

It did not, however I have no idea how I managed to create duplicates. I will fix issues you mentioned.

See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917281

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1917281 ***

Thanks, this makes a lot more sense now! And thank you for looking into the things I noticed.