Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fielding/fielding.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fielding/fielding-0.1^20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: A simple REST API testing tool. Fedora Account System Username: farchord
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fielding/fielding.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fielding/fielding-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc38.src.rpm Updated the versioning
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6590095 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247562-fielding/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06590095-fielding/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.
Created attachment 1996667 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6590095 to 6590097
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6590097 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247562-fielding/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06590097-fielding/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.
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fielding/fielding.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fielding/fielding-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc39.src.rpm v0.1
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6864515 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247562-fielding/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06864515-fielding/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.
This looks good overall. Please see the handful of issues below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Historically, a package with multiple licenses was required to contain a comment or file documenting the breakdown of licenses. I can no longer find a documentation link for this – and I filed issues at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1331 and https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/issues/64 requesting clarification – but for now, it would probably be better to have such a comment. I would suggest something like: # The following files contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs: # # CC0-1.0: # - README.md # - org.kde.fielding.desktop # - org.kde.fielding.json # - org.kde.fielding.metainfo.xml # GPL-3.0-or-later: # - po/ # - src/ui/ # LGPL-2.0-or-later: # - logo.png # - src/fieldingconfig.{kcfg,kcfgc} # LGPL-2.1-or-later: # - src/app.{cpp,h} # - src/controller.{cpp,h} # - src/main.cpp # # The basis for considering the translations (po/) GPL-3.0-or-later is that # their header comments say they are “distributed under the same license as # the fielding package,” and the <project_license> tag in # org.kde.fielding.metainfo.xml suggests that upstream considers this to be # GPL-3.0-or-later. # # The following files do not contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs, # e.g. because they belong to the build system. # # CC0-1.0: # - .gitlab-ci.yml # - .kde-ci.yml # - Messages.sh # - src/Messages.sh # BSD-2-Clause: # - CMakeLists.txt # - src/CMakeLists.txt # # The Messages.sh files (and perhaps the CI YAML files?) would normally be # considered code, for which the CC0-1.0 license is not-allowed. However, # they fall under the following exception: # # Upstream application of CC0-1.0 to trivial, noncreative, unoriginal, and # nonexpressive material as part of an effort to achieve conformance to the # REUSE specification (https://reuse.software/) (for example, CI/CD # configuration files) is permitted regardless of whether such material # would normally be classified as "content". This is pretty verbose, and it‘s more than is required (it was never required do document licenses of build-system files, for example), but it’s pretty helpful for future re-auditing and clearly documents where the License expression comes from. On that topic, since only CMakeLists.txt files are BSD-2-Clause, and as build-system files they don’t contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs, the License expression should be changed from License: BSD-2-Clause AND CC0-1.0 AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later to License: CC0-1.0 AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later which you *might* prefer to write as License: %{shrink: CC0-1.0 AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later } if you would like to avoid long lines in the spec file. - Please change %define gitcommit 1912c8055d9f607916e0c6fc568e2c0ee0336493 %define gitdate 20231028.022709 %define shortcommit %(c=%{gitcommit}; echo ${c:0:7}) to %global gitcommit 1912c8055d9f607916e0c6fc568e2c0ee0336493 %global gitdate 20231028.022709 %global shortcommit %(c=%{gitcommit}; echo ${c:0:7}) as prescribed by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_global_preferred_over_define - The reuse tool is a linter, and doesn’t seem to be used in the build. It appears you can remove: BuildRequires: reuse ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - Since upstream has a version number, consider asking if they can start to tag releases. - You don’t need to number the source, i.e., you can replace Source0: … with Source: … although the numbered form *is* permissible. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 and/or GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2247562-fielding/licensecheck.txt Nothing licensed BSD-2-Clause appears in or otherwise contributes to the licenses of the binary RPMs, so this can be removed from the License expression. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. See Issues. [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. [-]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1913 bytes in 1 files. [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. [-]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112231911 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream provides no tests, and no reasonable “smoke test” exists. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define gitcommit 1912c8055d9f607916e0c6fc568e2c0ee0336493, %define gitdate 20231028.022709, %define shortcommit %(c=%{gitcommit}; echo ${c:0:7}) [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. ===== 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: fielding-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm fielding-debuginfo-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm fielding-debugsource-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm fielding-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.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/tmpaafki_7a')] checks: 31, packages: 4 fielding.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fielding 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fielding-debuginfo-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.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/tmpxi77u9bs')] 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: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 3 fielding.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fielding 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 15 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/utilities/fielding/-/archive/1912c80/fielding-1912c80.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 63cbda2b6c78dd14ee8d0547e6061e2657b581c709984927abba2257f897bbb4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 63cbda2b6c78dd14ee8d0547e6061e2657b581c709984927abba2257f897bbb4 Requires -------- fielding (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libKF6ConfigCore.so.6()(64bit) libKF6ConfigGui.so.6()(64bit) libKF6CoreAddons.so.6()(64bit) libKF6DBusAddons.so.6()(64bit) libKF6I18n.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.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) libQt6Quick.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Quick.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6QuickControls2.so.6()(64bit) libQt6QuickControls2.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.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) fielding-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fielding-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fielding: application() application(org.kde.fielding.desktop) fielding fielding(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.kde.fielding.metainfo.xml) fielding-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fielding-debuginfo fielding-debuginfo(x86-64) fielding-debugsource: fielding-debugsource fielding-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2247562 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Perl, Python, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fielding/fielding.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fielding/fielding-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.src.rpm Updated with review suggestions
As far as submitting a suggestion to make a tagged release upstream, I'll do that a bit later today, though I'm assuming this app is maybe just not 100% complete (It still kinda looks barebones). As far as the license suggestion goes, to be honest, the license breakdown is difficult for new packages (and me) to generate. Is there a program or something that can fetch that (similar to reuse)? To be honest I read the spec comments you suggested and started getting a headache.
Created attachment 2010149 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6864515 to 6946328
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6946328 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247562-fielding/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06946328-fielding/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.
I suppose that for a REUSE project like this, you could restore the BR on reuse and do something like %build # Produce an automated breakdown of licenses in source files. Some of these # files do not contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs. reuse spdx | tee LICENSES.spdx … %files %license LICENSES/* LICENSES.spdx and that would satisfy the requirement for a breakdown of licenses, but the disadvantages are: - the tool has no way to tell which files do or do not contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs - the tool has no way to tell which CC0-1.0 are “code” vs. “content,” nor which “code” files are allowed under the exception for trivial code in REUSE projects - the tool has no way to infer which license is intended for the .po files (really, upstream should ideally make this explicit) so as the package is updated with new files, you’re still going to have to do some manual analysis to determine what the License expression should be and whether everything is indeed still allowable in Fedora.
All feedback from the previous review was incorporated. No issues were found. The package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: 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: "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 and/or GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2247562-fielding/20240128/2247562-fielding/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. [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. [-]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1913 bytes in 1 files. [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. [-]: 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. Upstream provides no tests, and no reasonable “smoke test” exists. [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: 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: fielding-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm fielding-debuginfo-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm fielding-debugsource-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm fielding-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.src.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmp9b7i1mlh')] checks: 32, packages: 4 fielding.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fielding ========== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fielding-debuginfo-0.1~20231028.022709.1912c80-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmpdxp1w5jp')] checks: 32, packages: 1 =========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 3 fielding.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fielding 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 15 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/utilities/fielding/-/archive/1912c80/fielding-1912c80.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 63cbda2b6c78dd14ee8d0547e6061e2657b581c709984927abba2257f897bbb4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 63cbda2b6c78dd14ee8d0547e6061e2657b581c709984927abba2257f897bbb4 Requires -------- fielding (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libKF6ConfigCore.so.6()(64bit) libKF6ConfigGui.so.6()(64bit) libKF6CoreAddons.so.6()(64bit) libKF6DBusAddons.so.6()(64bit) libKF6I18n.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.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) libQt6Quick.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Quick.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6QuickControls2.so.6()(64bit) libQt6QuickControls2.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.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) fielding-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fielding-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fielding: application() application(org.kde.fielding.desktop) fielding fielding(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.kde.fielding.metainfo.xml) fielding-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fielding-debuginfo fielding-debuginfo(x86-64) fielding-debugsource: fielding-debugsource fielding-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2247562 --mock-options=--dnf Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, fonts, Python, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review, Ben! (I actually forgot I submitted this!)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fielding