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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.
- Unowned portal directories
- Should Requires: dbus-common

===== 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 Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 8
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/pihhan/fedora/review/2127168-xdg-desktop-portal-
     lxqt/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/services,
     /usr/share/xdg-desktop-portal/portals, /usr/share/dbus-1,
     /usr/share/xdg-desktop-portal
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 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]: 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.
[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.
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 3

xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/libexec/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/libexec/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8)
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/libexec/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-0.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'

xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/46/9a7b35cb73242720dfcad57a43727f82932dfc ../../../.build-id/46/9a7b35cb73242720dfcad57a43727f82932dfc
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/lxqt/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt/releases/download/0.2.0/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-0.2.0.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1a4d121a028d249e70a64fa371b72533fe94fbaf38b61229e1afb122fa49e2d4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a4d121a028d249e70a64fa371b72533fe94fbaf38b61229e1afb122fa49e2d4


Requires
--------
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libKF5WindowSystem.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)
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5_PRIVATE_API)(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libfm-qt.so.11()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt:
    application()
    application(org.freedesktop.impl.portal.desktop.lxqt.desktop)
    xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt
    xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt(x86-64)

xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo
    xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debuginfo(x86-64)

xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debugsource:
    xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debugsource
    xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2127168
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Perl, R, Java, Python, Haskell, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

I think it has to depend on dbus-common for proper owned dbus directories.
Because there seems no proper owner of /usr/share/xdg-desktop-portal/portals and /usr/share/xdg-desktop-portal, I think the package should own those directories itself. Even on my Gnome system those directories has multiple owners, so we can add more.

That seems to be the only thing to pass the review.

Oh, and license should be adjusted to match SPDX license identifier. I guess LGPL-2.1-or-later would be correct one, more on [1].

1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

Thanks.

The updated file are here.

SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zsun/review-lxqt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04884895-xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zsun/review-lxqt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04884895-xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-0.2.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2)
> I think it has to depend on dbus-common for proper owned dbus directories.
Added

(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #3)
> Oh, and license should be adjusted to match SPDX license identifier. I guess
> LGPL-2.1-or-later would be correct one, more on [1].
> 
> 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

I think it should be the term 'LGPLv2+'. So I just fixed it in the SPEC.

A new package would become part of rawhide, upcoming Fedora 38. That has proposed change [1] to use SPDX license identifiers. For Fedora 37 'LGPLv2+' would be okay, but for rawhide, where those reviews targets, it should be 'LGPL-2.1-or-later' IMO. But this might be changed later. Why I haven't already passed the review are remaining unowned directories.

I think you have fixed just dbus-1 directories, but some portal directories remain unowned. It should own just directory by this in %files:

%dir %{_datadir}/xdg-desktop-portal
%dir %{_datadir}/xdg-desktop-portal/portals

Unless it solves it by another Requires as well. Would it make sense if it also required xdg-desktop-portal package owning those directories? Can the package do something useful without this package installed?

rpm -qf /usr/share/xdg-desktop-portal or rpm -qf /usr/share/xdg-desktop-portal/portals must report owning package when the package is installed. If it creates it, it either has to own it or depend on package owning it. Take as example podman fedora container, where this package can be installed too. After it were installed and uninstalled, all directories it has created should be deleted again.

1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1#Summary

(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #5)
> A new package would become part of rawhide, upcoming Fedora 38. That has
> proposed change [1] to use SPDX license identifiers. For Fedora 37 'LGPLv2+'
> would be okay, but for rawhide, where those reviews targets, it should be
> 'LGPL-2.1-or-later' IMO. But this might be changed later. Why I haven't
> already passed the review are remaining unowned directories.
> 

Oh I haven't check the change yet. Thanks for the info.

> I think you have fixed just dbus-1 directories, but some portal directories
> remain unowned. It should own just directory by this in %files:
> 
> %dir %{_datadir}/xdg-desktop-portal
> %dir %{_datadir}/xdg-desktop-portal/portals
> 
> Unless it solves it by another Requires as well. Would it make sense if it
> also required xdg-desktop-portal package owning those directories? Can the
> package do something useful without this package installed?
> > rpm -qf /usr/share/xdg-desktop-portal or rpm -qf
> /usr/share/xdg-desktop-portal/portals must report owning package when the
> package is installed. If it creates it, it either has to own it or depend on
> package owning it. Take as example podman fedora container, where this
> package can be installed too. After it were installed and uninstalled, all
> directories it has created should be deleted again.
> 

Ahhh my fault. I thought I already have xdg-desktop-portal as dependency so I was thinking the two directory you mentioned is fine.

Here is the fixed one
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zsun/review-lxqt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04919428-xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt/fedora-review/review.txt

SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zsun/review-lxqt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04919428-xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zsun/review-lxqt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04919428-xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt-0.2.0-1.fc38.src.rpm



> 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1#Summary

Seems fine, thank you for the submission!

Passing the review.

Thanks a lot for your help!

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xdg-desktop-portal-lxqt