Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06529751-anymeal/anymeal.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06529751-anymeal/anymeal-1.20-1.fc40.src.rpm description: AnyMeal is a free and open source recipe management software developed using SQLite3 and Qt5. It can manage a cookbook with more than 250,000 MealMaster recipes, thereby allowing to import, export, search, display, edit, and print them. fas: fed500 koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107588850 Reproducible: Always
Taking this review. This looks like a really fun and handy app.
gah, forgot to assign the bug to myself
Other than the two things listed below, this looks good to me, and the two issues look easy to resolve. Issues: * The License field states GPL-3.0-only, but many of the source files are "GPL-3.0-or-later". I suspect the developer's intentions were to license the whole thing as GPL-3.0-or-later, however for now I believe it would be correct to specify the license as "GPL-3.0-only AND GPL-3.0-or-later" since many files do not have explicit license headers. * gtest is a build requires but it doesn't look like the tests are actually being built and run. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "BSD 3-Clause License". 141 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/user/anymeal/2244407-anymeal/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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [?]: 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 96192 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: anymeal-1.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm anymeal-debuginfo-1.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm anymeal-debugsource-1.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm anymeal-1.20-1.fc40.src.rpm ==================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6dxvj5wt')] checks: 31, packages: 4 ===================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ===================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: anymeal-debuginfo-1.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ==================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphk8snd_j')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ===================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/releases/download/v1.20/anymeal-1.20.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82a6d6eab9467bfeb0b924080c5d48de8351e6136a0bcd8f089ea64186140211 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82a6d6eab9467bfeb0b924080c5d48de8351e6136a0bcd8f089ea64186140211 https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/releases/download/v1.20/anymeal-1.20.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2addee2e3d69f42ca77183cb8f24d7464c39bf03fcaf98e49d3eed8c6acbb05 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2addee2e3d69f42ca77183cb8f24d7464c39bf03fcaf98e49d3eed8c6acbb05 Requires -------- anymeal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5()(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(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) librecode.so.3()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) anymeal-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): anymeal-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- anymeal: anymeal anymeal(x86-64) application() application(de.wedesoft.anymeal.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(de.wedesoft.anymeal.appdata.xml) anymeal-debuginfo: anymeal-debuginfo anymeal-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) anymeal-debugsource: anymeal-debugsource anymeal-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: /home/user/anymeal/2244407-anymeal/upstream- unpacked/Source0/anymeal-1.20/configure.ac:81 Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2244407 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, fonts, R, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Just a quick note: > # https://www.wedesoft.de/gnupg-wedekind.asc > Source2: gnupg-wedekind.asc There's no reason you couldn't have the URL in Source2. It would still work fine.
> %{_datadir}/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/anymeal_qt.qm > %{_datadir}/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/anymeal_qt.qm > %{_datadir}/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/anymeal_qt.qm > %{_datadir}/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/anymeal_qt.qm This should be identified with "%find_lang %{name}_qt --with-qt" rather than manually listed, so that the translation files are correctly tagged.
Thanks for the feedback. The package uses Googletest source files to compile the tests. These are not packaged in Fedora. They are in OpenSUSE and Debian. Made a pull request to add them: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/pull-request/8 Maybe there is a way to make a build depend on a debugsource package? Checked if upstream would want to try and run tests with compiled libraries: https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/issues/40 Current head of repository no longer has obsolete macro: https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/pull/38 As a minor change, prefer to package release version. Updated licenses and checking upstream on intent: https://github.com/wedesoft/anymeal/issues/39 Used url for source2 Used "%find_lang %{name} --with-qt" Can wait for response from upstream and updates to Googletest, but have updated the package: spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06537512-anymeal/anymeal.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06537512-anymeal/anymeal-1.20-1.fc40.src.rpm
Unless the tests actually include gtest/gmock source files, it can probably be adapted to use the compiled version.
Upstream has adapted tests and indicated all files are under GPL-3.0-or-later spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546139-anymeal/anymeal.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546139-anymeal/anymeal-1.21-1.fc40.src.rpm koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107744623
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6546191 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244407-anymeal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546191-anymeal/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Everything looks good to me, and I have verified locally that the tests passed. PACKAGE APPROVED. Minor nitpick, `%autosetup` works without `-n %{name}-%{version}`, but it works fine with it too and there's no guideline against it that I can find.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/anymeal
FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c
Thanks for the review.
FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308
FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-cbfdbf9308 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-be8838ba0c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.