Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/kimagemapeditor.spec SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/kimagemapeditor-24.12.3-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: KImageMapEditor is an editor of image maps embedded inside HTML files, based on the <map> HTML tag. Fedora Account System Username: yselkowitz
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8813660 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354602-kimagemapeditor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08813660-kimagemapeditor/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.
Taking this.
The review points out that the FSF address in the license is wrong, when in reality it just has spaces before it, so I'll ignore that. One thing though, the %description line: KImageMapEditor is an editor of image maps embedded inside HTML files, based on the is slightly longer than 80 characters, and should be fixed before import. That one should be fixed before import, but I don't see this being a good reason to hold the review back. PACKAGE APPROVED Review contents for reference: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: [ ]: 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", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 125 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/farchord/Documents/kimageeditor/kimagemapeditor-24.12.3/2354602-kimagemapeditor/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/HTML/pt, /usr/share/doc/HTML/ru, /usr/share/doc/HTML/en, /usr/share/doc/HTML, /usr/share/doc/HTML/et, /usr/share/qlogging-categories6, /usr/share/doc/HTML/ko, /usr/share/doc/HTML/nl, /usr/share/doc/HTML/pl, /usr/share/doc/HTML/it, /usr/share/doc/HTML/es, /usr/share/doc/HTML/pt_BR, /usr/share/doc/HTML/de, /usr/share/doc/HTML/sl, /usr/share/doc/HTML/sv, /usr/share/doc/HTML/uk, /usr/share/doc/HTML/ca, /usr/share/doc/HTML/fr [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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 991435 bytes in 40 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: 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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1976320 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kimagemapeditor
FEDORA-2025-a732f51136 (kimagemapeditor-24.12.3-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a732f51136
FEDORA-2025-e2b5a304de (kimagemapeditor-24.12.3-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e2b5a304de
FEDORA-2025-e2b5a304de has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-e2b5a304de \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e2b5a304de See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-a732f51136 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-a732f51136 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a732f51136 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-e2b5a304de (kimagemapeditor-24.12.3-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-a732f51136 (kimagemapeditor-24.12.3-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.