Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/qalculate-qt.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/qalculate-qt-4.1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Qalculate! is a multi-purpose cross-platform desktop calculator. It is simple to use but provides power and versatility normally reserved for complicated math packages, as well as useful tools for everyday needs (such as currency conversion and percent calculation). Features include a large library of customizable functions, unit calculations and conversion, symbolic calculations (including integrals and equations), arbitrary precision, uncertainty propagation, interval arithmetic, plotting, and a user-friendly interface. This package provides a Qt graphical interface for Qalculate! Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch build: F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85437553
This builds for F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85437786 It will build for F36 after https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b70edfc5b0 reaches stable. I will coordinate with the maintainers of the libqalculate, qalculate-gtk, and qalculate-kde packages and offer them co-maintainership on this package. This package is the upstream replacement for qalculate-kde, but this is not a review under the Package Renaming Process: the package is parallel-installable with qalculate-kde and does not (currently) Obsolete it. Once qalculate-qt is in the distribution, I plan to inquire whether qalculate-kde’s maintainers want to continue packaging it separately, or replace it with this package. If they want to replace it, I would add: > # Renamed upstream > Provides: qalculate-kde = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} > Obsoletes: qalculate-kde < 0.9.7.10-34
Updated the AppStream ID based on feedback on https://github.com/Qalculate/qalculate-qt/pull/40. New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220410/qalculate-qt.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220410/qalculate-qt-4.1.1-1.fc35.src.rpm New scratch builds: F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85439806 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85439811
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. -- This spec is using %autorelease, I believe this is a false positive. ===== 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 265 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/quake/review/2073772-qalculate-qt/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. [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. [x]: 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 2 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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: 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 ------- Manualy ran rpmlint because automatic file was blank. Spec File: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness SRPM File: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness qalculate-qt-4.1.1-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm : qalculate-qt.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/qalculate-qt/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness - This is an expected rpmlint issue. Comments in the spec file explain why this issue shows up, attempts to fix, and why it is still there. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Qalculate/qalculate-qt/releases/download/v4.1.1/qalculate-qt-4.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 463e506331e8a49ec5ee355fe74da25d7a5cae945f5228081603be1f6d31f49f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 463e506331e8a49ec5ee355fe74da25d7a5cae945f5228081603be1f6d31f49f Requires -------- qalculate-qt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.2)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(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) libqalculate.so.22()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qalculate-qt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qalculate-qt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- qalculate-qt: application() application(io.github.Qalculate.qalculate-qt.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(io.github.Qalculate.qalculate-qt.metainfo.xml) qalculate-qt qalculate-qt(x86-64) qalculate-qt-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qalculate-qt-debuginfo qalculate-qt-debuginfo(x86-64) qalculate-qt-debugsource: qalculate-qt-debugsource qalculate-qt-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2073772 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, R, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The one concern I had was whether to obsolte qalculate-kde. But I tested and both the old qalculate-kde, and the new qalculate-qt install together and don't overlap. So, I am approving this.
Thank you for the review! Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/43677 From comment #1, above, > I will coordinate with the maintainers of the libqalculate, qalculate-gtk, and qalculate-kde packages and offer them co-maintainership on this package. > This package is the upstream replacement for qalculate-kde, but this is not a review under the Package Renaming Process: the package is parallel-installable with qalculate-kde and does not (currently) Obsolete it. Once qalculate-qt is in the distribution, I plan to inquire whether qalculate-kde’s maintainers want to continue packaging it separately, or replace it with this package. So this package probably should be an upgrade path from qalculate-kde, but I want to ask qalculate-kde’s maintainers, and I don’t feel pressed to handle it before import since the package is parallel-installable.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qalculate-qt
FEDORA-2022-e1b384089c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e1b384089c
FEDORA-2022-e1b384089c has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-8d5491b38d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8d5491b38d
FEDORA-2022-00330accc3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-00330accc3
FEDORA-2022-8d5491b38d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-8d5491b38d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8d5491b38d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-00330accc3 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-00330accc3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-00330accc3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-00330accc3 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-8d5491b38d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.