Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elmarco/ironrdp-fedora/refs/heads/master/mingw-appstream/mingw-appstream.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/elmarco/test/srpm-builds/09355815/mingw-appstream-1.0.5-1.src.rpm Description: Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream database Fedora Account System Username: elmarco The package is required by newer MinGW libadwaita. We tried to build it as part of appstream package, but the dependency on native build makes things too complicated: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/appstream/pull-request/6
Looks like the parent dirs in these %files paths are unowned? %{mingw32_datadir}/appstream/appstream.conf %{mingw32_datadir}/gettext/its/metainfo.* %{mingw32_datadir}/installed-tests/appstream/metainfo-validate.test
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elmarco/ironrdp-fedora/refs/heads/master/mingw-appstream/mingw-appstream.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/elmarco/test/srpm-builds/09439644/mingw-appstream-1.0.6-1.src.rpm Description: Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream database Fedora Account System Username: elmarco rawhide build fails atm: Failed to resolve the transaction: Problem 1: package mingw64-pango-1.56.4-2.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw64(libharfbuzz-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides mingw64(icuuc76.dll) needed by mingw64-harfbuzz-11.4.1-2.fc44.noarch from fedora Problem 2: package mingw32-pango-1.56.4-2.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw32(libharfbuzz-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides mingw32(icuuc76.dll) needed by mingw32-harfbuzz-11.4.1-2.fc44.noarch from fedora Problem 3: package mingw32-librsvg2-2.57.1-6.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw32(libpango-1.0-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed - package mingw32-librsvg2-2.57.1-6.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw32(libpangocairo-1.0-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed - package mingw32-pango-1.56.4-2.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw32(libharfbuzz-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides mingw32(icuuc76.dll) needed by mingw32-harfbuzz-11.4.1-2.fc44.noarch from fedora Problem 4: package mingw64-librsvg2-2.57.1-6.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw64(libpango-1.0-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed - package mingw64-librsvg2-2.57.1-6.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw64(libpangocairo-1.0-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed - package mingw64-pango-1.56.4-2.fc43.noarch from fedora requires mingw64(libharfbuzz-0.dll), but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides mingw64(icuuc76.dll) needed by mingw64-harfbuzz-11.4.1-2.fc44.noarch from fedora
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9439675 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2385230-mingw-appstream/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09439675-mingw-appstream/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.
Hm yes looks like mingw-harfbuzz didn't pick up the new icu when it was rebuilt, resubmitted now.
- Please check whether the license breakdown is indeed complete, see below. - These directories are still unowned: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests - Some rpmlint warnings regarding incorrect FSF addresses may be reported upstream 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* FSF All Permissive License", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 328 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sandro/Desktop/2385230-mingw- appstream/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/share/installed-tests, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests [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. [-]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm mingw64-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm mingw64-appstream-debuginfo-1.0.6-1.fc44.noarch.rpm mingw-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmprqc_v514')] checks: 32, packages: 4 mingw32-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/appstream/as-content-rating.h mingw32-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw32-appstream/COPYING mingw64-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw64-appstream/COPYING mingw64-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/appstream/as-content-rating.h mingw-appstream.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 3 mingw64-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw64-appstream/COPYING mingw64-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/appstream/as-content-rating.h mingw32-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/appstream/as-content-rating.h mingw32-appstream.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mingw32-appstream/COPYING Source checksums ---------------- https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/releases/AppStream-1.0.6.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : db4439db6a33de3ca1041473501610844ddf1b72ae23016c05242c681c380b4d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db4439db6a33de3ca1041473501610844ddf1b72ae23016c05242c681c380b4d Requires -------- mingw32-appstream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(advapi32.dll) mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libappstream-5.dll) mingw32(libcurl-4.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll) mingw32(libgio-2.0-0.dll) mingw32(libglib-2.0-0.dll) mingw32(libgobject-2.0-0.dll) mingw32(libintl-8.dll) mingw32(libwinpthread-1.dll) mingw32(libxml2-2.dll) mingw32(libxmlb-2.dll) mingw32(libyaml-0-2.dll) mingw32(libzstd.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config mingw64-appstream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(advapi32.dll) mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libappstream-5.dll) mingw64(libcurl-4.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libgio-2.0-0.dll) mingw64(libglib-2.0-0.dll) mingw64(libgobject-2.0-0.dll) mingw64(libintl-8.dll) mingw64(libxml2-2.dll) mingw64(libxmlb-2.dll) mingw64(libyaml-0-2.dll) mingw64(libzstd.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config mingw64-appstream-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mingw32-appstream: mingw32(libappstream-5.dll) mingw32-appstream mingw32-pkgconfig(appstream) mingw64-appstream: mingw64(libappstream-5.dll) mingw64-appstream mingw64-pkgconfig(appstream) mingw64-appstream-debuginfo: mingw64-appstream-debuginfo Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2385230 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, R, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #5) > - Please check whether the license breakdown is indeed complete, see below. I based it on appstream.spec https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/appstream/blob/rawhide/f/appstream.spec Apparently, the docs/ use different licenses (GFDL & CCSA), but are not shipped in Fedora. Then I think https://github.com/ximion/appstream/blob/main/src/as-spdx-data.h might confuse review tool. > - These directories are still unowned: > /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests, > /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests those shouldn't be owned imho, there are shared directories > - Some rpmlint warnings regarding incorrect FSF addresses may be reported > upstream > https://github.com/ximion/appstream/pull/726
> > - These directories are still unowned: > > /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests, > > /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests > those shouldn't be owned imho, there are shared directories Currently I only see one other package installing files to that directory, i.e. mingw-json-glib, which owns the directory. So I suggest either mingw-appstream co-owns it, or we move ownership to mingw-filesystem.
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #7) > > > - These directories are still unowned: > > > /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests, > > > /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/installed-tests > > > those shouldn't be owned imho, there are shared directories > > Currently I only see one other package installing files to that directory, > i.e. mingw-json-glib, which owns the directory. > So I suggest either mingw-appstream co-owns it, or we move ownership to > mingw-filesystem. How to do that?, it doesn't seem to own any of the subdir from a first look.
If you do %files %{mingw32_datadir}/installed-tests/ the dir and all children are owned. If you do %files %dir %{mingw32_datadir}/installed-tests/ just the dir, but not the children are owned. If you do %files %{mingw32_datadir}/installed-tests/* only the children, but not the dir are owned.
Should all be good now with [1], approved. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-filesystem/pull-request/15
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-appstream
FEDORA-2025-9e908068bd (mingw-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9e908068bd
FEDORA-2025-9e908068bd (mingw-appstream-1.0.6-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.