Bug 2354830 - Review Request: novelwriter - Plain text editor designed for writing novels
Summary: Review Request: novelwriter - Plain text editor designed for writing novels
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Peter Lemenkov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://novelwriter.io/
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2355050
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-03-25 12:22 UTC by Benson Muite
Modified: 2025-04-11 18:22 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-04-06 01:20:56 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
lemenkov: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8818450 to 8818533 (775 bytes, patch)
2025-03-25 12:50 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8818533 to 8823237 (3.50 KB, patch)
2025-03-26 12:48 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8823237 to 8823532 (464 bytes, patch)
2025-03-26 14:32 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8823532 to 8823709 (616 bytes, patch)
2025-03-26 15:41 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Benson Muite 2025-03-25 12:22:48 UTC
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/novelwriter.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/novelwriter-2.6.3-1.fc43.src.rpm

description:
novelWriter is a plain text editor designed for writing novels assembled from
many smaller text documents. It uses a minimal formatting syntax inspired by
Markdown, and adds a meta data syntax for comments, synopsis, and
cross-referencing. It's designed to be a simple text editor that allows for
easy organisation of text and notes, using human readable text files as
storage for robustness.

The project storage is suitable for version control software, and also well
suited for file synchronisation tools. All text is saved as plain text files
with a meta data header. The core project structure is stored in a single
project XML file. Other meta data is primarily saved as JSON files.

fas: fed500

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-25 12:29:05 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8818450
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354830-novelwriter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08818450-novelwriter/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- aspell-en is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 2 Benson Muite 2025-03-25 12:48:09 UTC
Replace deprecated dependency



spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/novelwriter.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/novelwriter-2.6.3-1.fc43.src.rpm

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-25 12:50:47 UTC
Created attachment 2081904 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8818450 to 8818533

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-25 12:50:49 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8818533
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354830-novelwriter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08818533-novelwriter/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-26 12:48:56 UTC
Created attachment 2082084 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8818533 to 8823237

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-26 12:48:58 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8823237
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354830-novelwriter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08823237-novelwriter/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Comment 9 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-26 14:32:39 UTC
Created attachment 2082090 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8823237 to 8823532

Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-26 14:32:42 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8823532
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354830-novelwriter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08823532-novelwriter/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.

Comment 12 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-26 15:41:28 UTC
Created attachment 2082092 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8823532 to 8823709

Comment 13 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-26 15:41:30 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8823709
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354830-novelwriter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08823709-novelwriter/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.

Comment 14 Peter Lemenkov 2025-03-26 17:01:14 UTC
I'll review it

Comment 15 Peter Lemenkov 2025-03-28 12:45:10 UTC
LGTM. I can't spot any big issues so here is my formal

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

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

===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: No need for a separate -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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s).
[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 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 4717 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (2.6.3).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep (upstream does not
     publish signatures).
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).

^^^ This is fine with autorelease and autochangelog macros.

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: novelwriter-2.6.3-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          novelwriter-doc-2.6.3-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          novelwriter-2.6.3-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp7wymrzoy')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

novelwriter.noarch: E: spelling-error ('organisation', '%description -l en_US organisation -> organization, organist, sanitation')
novelwriter.noarch: E: spelling-error ('synchronisation', '%description -l en_US synchronisation -> synchronization, synchronicity')
novelwriter.src: E: spelling-error ('organisation', '%description -l en_US organisation -> organization, organist, sanitation')
novelwriter.src: E: spelling-error ('synchronisation', '%description -l en_US synchronisation -> synchronization, synchronicity')
novelwriter-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('javascript', '%description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript')

^^^ False positives  (US vs. British english)

novelwriter.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary novelwriter

^^^ Well, can be ignored. We can't do much here.

novelwriter.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/i18n/project_en_US.json /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/i18n/project_en_GB.json
novelwriter.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/icons/typicons_light/nw_deco-h0.svg /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/icons/typicons_dark/nw_deco-h0.svg
novelwriter.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/icons/typicons_light/nw_deco-noveltree-more.svg /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/icons/typicons_dark/nw_deco-noveltree-more.svg
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings, 11 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 1.6 s 


^^^ Can be ignored.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2

novelwriter-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('javascript', '%description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript')
novelwriter.noarch: E: spelling-error ('organisation', '%description -l en_US organisation -> organization, organist, sanitation')
novelwriter.noarch: E: spelling-error ('synchronisation', '%description -l en_US synchronisation -> synchronization, synchronicity')
novelwriter.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary novelwriter
novelwriter.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/i18n/project_en_US.json /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/i18n/project_en_GB.json
novelwriter.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/icons/typicons_light/nw_deco-h0.svg /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/icons/typicons_dark/nw_deco-h0.svg
novelwriter.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/icons/typicons_light/nw_deco-noveltree-more.svg /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/novelwriter/assets/icons/typicons_dark/nw_deco-noveltree-more.svg
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.5 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/vkbo/novelwriter/archive/v2.6.3/novelwriter-2.6.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8d18acf0069852c2598e73c3b76b4a8cf1d1c96d485d5165ff8cf3337ec7f920
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d18acf0069852c2598e73c3b76b4a8cf1d1c96d485d5165ff8cf3337ec7f920


Requires
--------
novelwriter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    hicolor-icon-theme
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(pyenchant)
    python3.13dist(pyqt5)

novelwriter-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
novelwriter:
    application()
    application(novelwriter.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(novelwriter.appdata.xml)
    mimehandler(application/x-novelwriter-project)
    novelwriter
    python3.13dist(novelwriter)
    python3dist(novelwriter)

novelwriter-doc:
    novelwriter-doc



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2354830-novelwriter/srpm/novelwriter.spec	2025-03-28 12:07:06.820158605 +0100
+++ /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2354830-novelwriter/srpm-unpacked/novelwriter.spec	2025-03-26 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           novelwriter
 Version:        2.6.3
@@ -110,3 +120,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Wed Mar 26 2025 John Doe <packager> - 2.6.3-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2354830
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Java, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


THis package is 

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

Comment 16 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-03-28 14:25:54 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/novelwriter

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2025-03-28 16:13:26 UTC
FEDORA-2025-f680f1d4e7 (novelwriter-2.6.3-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f680f1d4e7

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2025-03-28 16:14:12 UTC
FEDORA-2025-dd74f34ec5 (novelwriter-2.6.3-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-dd74f34ec5

Comment 19 Benson Muite 2025-03-28 16:15:26 UTC
Thanks for the review.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2025-03-29 01:32:01 UTC
FEDORA-2025-dd74f34ec5 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-dd74f34ec5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-dd74f34ec5

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2025-03-29 02:37:52 UTC
FEDORA-2025-f680f1d4e7 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-f680f1d4e7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f680f1d4e7

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2025-04-06 01:20:56 UTC
FEDORA-2025-f680f1d4e7 (novelwriter-2.6.3-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 23 Fedora Update System 2025-04-11 18:22:28 UTC
FEDORA-2025-dd74f34ec5 (novelwriter-2.6.3-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.