Spec URL: https://api.nicehomeservices.com/images/temp/kf6-bluez-qt.spec SRPM URL: https://api.nicehomeservices.com/images/temp/kf6-bluez-qt-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: A Qt wrapper for Bluez Fedora Account System Username: farchord
Updated the spec to bring versioning more in line with the other kf6 packages (Until they go live anyway)
Taking this review...
Initial spec review: > %undefine __cmake_in_source_build Not needed. Drop it. > %if 0%{?fedora} > 22 > Recommends: bluez >= 5 > %else > Requires: bluez >= 5 > %endif This conditional is no longer required. We can always assume F22+. > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 22 > ## libbluedevil 5.2.2 was the last release > Obsoletes: libbluedevil < 5.2.90 > %endif This is ancient and can be dropped. > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 22 > ## libbluedevil 5.2.2 was the last release > Obsoletes: libbluedevil-devel < 5.2.90 > %endif This is ancient and can be dropped. > %ldconfig_scriptlets Not needed. Drop it.
Updated the spec and srpm
I just downloaded it and nothing appears to have changed?
I double-checked and it was updated but I did forget to remove %ldconfig_scriptlets, I went ahead and did that.
> License: LGPLv2+ This needs to change to SPDX notation: "LGPL-2.1-or-later".
I updated the spec with the SPDX notation and regenerated the source rpm. Thanks!
[fedora-review-service-build]
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated 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++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2237953-kf6-bluez-qt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org/kde, /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org, /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org/kde [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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 499 bytes in 1 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). [x]: 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: kf6-bluez-qt-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-bluez-qt-devel-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-bluez-qt-debuginfo-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-bluez-qt-debugsource-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-bluez-qt-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.src.rpm ========================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpshq_umrs')] checks: 31, packages: 5 kf6-bluez-qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kf6-bluez-qt-devel.x86_64: E: double-slash-in-pkgconfig-path /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/KF6BluezQt.pc libdir=${prefix}//usr/lib64 kf6-bluez-qt-devel.x86_64: E: double-slash-in-pkgconfig-path /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/KF6BluezQt.pc Libs: -L${prefix}//usr/lib64 -lKF6BluezQt =========================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.9 s =========================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kf6-bluez-qt-debuginfo-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ========================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpa0mn1_81')] checks: 31, packages: 1 =========================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =========================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 kf6-bluez-qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kf6-bluez-qt-devel.x86_64: E: double-slash-in-pkgconfig-path /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/KF6BluezQt.pc libdir=${prefix}//usr/lib64 kf6-bluez-qt-devel.x86_64: E: double-slash-in-pkgconfig-path /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/KF6BluezQt.pc Libs: -L${prefix}//usr/lib64 -lKF6BluezQt 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 1.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- kf6-bluez-qt: /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org/kde/bluezqt/libbluezqtextensionplugin.so Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/bluez-qt/-/archive/fe828b861140534ed728142acf03bd64ca13821e/bluez-qt-fe828b8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f340699e9f5843b6d10816cc47e934a7f0a32a9be7abb2415cba9eaf918e3420 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f340699e9f5843b6d10816cc47e934a7f0a32a9be7abb2415cba9eaf918e3420 Requires -------- kf6-bluez-qt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kf6-filesystem libKF6BluezQt.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.5)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Qml.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Qml.so.6(Qt_6)(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) kf6-bluez-qt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) kf6-bluez-qt(x86-64) libKF6BluezQt.so.6()(64bit) pkgconfig(Qt6Core) pkgconfig(Qt6DBus) pkgconfig(Qt6Network) qt6-qtbase-devel kf6-bluez-qt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kf6-bluez-qt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- kf6-bluez-qt: kf6-bluez-qt kf6-bluez-qt(x86-64) libKF6BluezQt.so.6()(64bit) libbluezqtextensionplugin.so()(64bit) kf6-bluez-qt-devel: cmake(KF6BluezQt) cmake(kf6bluezqt) kf6-bluez-qt-devel kf6-bluez-qt-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(KF6BluezQt) kf6-bluez-qt-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kf6-bluez-qt-debuginfo kf6-bluez-qt-debuginfo(x86-64) libKF6BluezQt.so.5.240.0-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libbluezqtextensionplugin.so-5.240.0^20230901.202319.fe828b8-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) kf6-bluez-qt-debugsource: kf6-bluez-qt-debugsource kf6-bluez-qt-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2237953 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10) > > > 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++/ > > Add "BuildRequires: gcc-c++" > ===== MUST items ===== > > [...] > > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org/kde, > /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org, > /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org/kde These probably need to be part of kf6-filesystem.
We're also missing BuildRequires on "cmake" too. And "%ldconfig_scriptlets" needs to be dropped.
Mmmm I swore I did remove the %ldconfig_scriptlets in the past as I know you asked... that's my bad. I added gcc-c++, added cmake. I filled a ticket for the double // issue.
> License: LGPLv2+ Needs to be fixed with SPDX notation.
Done, changed the license line to: License: CC0-1.0 AND LGPL-2.1-only AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-only There was also a LicenseRef about the KDE license but I think we usually skip that one?
(In reply to Steve Cossette from comment #15) > Done, changed the license line to: > > License: CC0-1.0 AND LGPL-2.1-only AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND > LGPL-3.0-only > > There was also a LicenseRef about the KDE license but I think we usually > skip that one? Yeah, for now we do.
The only thing I see that needs to be fixed now is the changelog entry, as the date and the version-release is obviously wrong now. But that can be fixed on import, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kf6-bluez-qt