Spec URL: https://pagure.io/Maukit-Packages/blob/main/f/maui-mauikit-filebrowsing/maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/Maukit-Packages/blob/main/f/maui-mauikit-filebrowsing/maui-mauikit-filebrowsing-1.2.2-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MauiKit is a set of utilities and "templated" controls based on Kirigami and QCC2 that follow the ongoing work on the Maui HIG. It lets you quickly create a Maui application and access utilities and widgets shared amoing the other Maui apps. Fedora Account System Username: thunderbirdtr
- Include examples/ in %doc - You should add a comment explaining the licenses breakdown: Name: maui-mauikit-filebrowsing Version: 1.2.2 Release: 1%{?dist} # LGPLv2+: main library # BSD: examples # CC0: qmldir License: LGPLv2+ and BSD qnd CC0 - Install fails: DEBUG util.py:444: No matching package to install: 'cmake(MauiKit)' You have imported the package but haven't built it: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=33739 I took the liberty to build it in Rawhide. - install src/controls/qmldir.license qnd add CC0 in the license field - own %{_libdir}/cmake/MauiKitFileBrowsing - Fix this typo: maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amoing -> among, amounting Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file qmldir.license is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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. [!]: 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 2-clause "Simplified" License GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/maui- mauikit-filebrowsing/review-maui-mauikit-filebrowsing/licensecheck.txt [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/MauiKitFileBrowsing [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 [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: maui-mauikit-filebrowsing-1.2.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm maui-mauikit-filebrowsing-devel-1.2.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm maui-mauikit-filebrowsing-debuginfo-1.2.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm maui-mauikit-filebrowsing-debugsource-1.2.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm maui-mauikit-filebrowsing-1.2.2-1.fc35.src.rpm maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templated -> templates, template, template d maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amoing -> among, amounting maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.x86_64: W: no-documentation maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/mauikit/filebrowsing/plugins.qmltypes maui-mauikit-filebrowsing-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templated -> templates, template, template d maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amoing -> among, amounting 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Hello, sorry for late answer, Spec URL: https://pagure.io/Maukit-Packages/raw/main/f/maui-mauikit-filebrowsing/maui-mauikit-filebrowsing.spec New SRPM : https://pagure.io/Maukit-Packages/raw/main/f/maui-mauikit-filebrowsing/maui-mauikit-filebrowsing-2.1.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Version also changed to 2.1.1 as well.
There are three issues with this package. After talking with the maintainer I am going to pass this. - Package Name: Should be mauikit-filebrowsing -- I have talked to the package maintainer and he will change the name to the upstream name of mauikit-filebrowsing when he requests the package. - Please update to the latest version (looks like 2.0.0) -- This needs to be done in concert with maui-mauikit being updated to 2.0.0. -- This also will be done when the package is first built. - Uses %define instead of %global (Optional but good) -- Is there a reason for this? -- If there isn't, please fix it 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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). [!]: 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: 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. [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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _shared_libname libMauiKitFileBrowsing, %define _maj_sover 2, %define _min_sover 2.1.1, %define _shared_libname_n %{_shared_libname}%{_maj_sover} [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.
Package was never imported. The ticket status is being reset, since creating the repository will require a fresh approval. Let us know if you're still interested in this package.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.