Spec URL: https://pagure.io/kongress_rpm/raw/master/f/kongress.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/kongress_rpm/raw/master/f/kongress-21.12-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Fedora Account System Username: justinz Pagure URL: https://pagure.io/kongress_rpm
Here's the first pass: - rpmlint is empty (no issues there) - Missing BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang - Installation of desktop file is missing: see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files "It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the package, one MUST run desktop-file-install (in %install) OR desktop-file-validate (in %check or %install) and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils, to help ensure .desktop file safety and spec-compliance." - Spec file licensing statement appears incorrect (lists only GPLv3+): licensecheck shows also CC0, CC-BY-SA 4.0, BSD 2-Clause - License file(s) do not appear to be installed with package Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: 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: "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 4.0", "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 2051049-kongress/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/icons/hicolor [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. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: 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. [ ]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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: [x]: 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. [ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://download.kde.org/stable/plasma-mobile/21.12/kongress-21.12.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fcf36d60d7cb947820defb668c63ca5249e48257d78256fca02ce75704be05ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fcf36d60d7cb947820defb668c63ca5249e48257d78256fca02ce75704be05ad Requires -------- kongress (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libKF5CalendarCore.so.5()(64bit) libKF5ConfigCore.so.5()(64bit) libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5DBusAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Notifications.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) kongress-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kongress-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- kongress: application() application(org.kde.kongress.desktop) kongress kongress(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.kde.kongress.appdata.xml) kongress-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kongress-debuginfo kongress-debuginfo(x86-64) kongress-debugsource: kongress-debugsource kongress-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2051049 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, R, fonts, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Requested changes made. Spec URL: https://pagure.io/kongress_rpm/raw/master/f/kongress.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/kongress_rpm/raw/master/f/kongress-22.02-1.fc35.src.rpm
the automated review is throwing a failure: """ [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). """ Looks like the changelog in the linked specfile is old and missing the entry of today: """ * Wed Feb 16 2022 Justin Zobel <justin> - 22.02-1 - Update to 22.02 """ Please double check and correct this, then we'll be all set, I believe
The wording was a little confusing but I think I've made the requested changes. Will request repository to be created.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kongress
FEDORA-2022-e4c4db9195 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e4c4db9195
FEDORA-2022-e4c4db9195 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.