Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kwin-zones/kwin-zones.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kwin-zones/kwin-zones-1.0.11-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Wayland ext-zones for KWin. Fedora Account System Username: farchord
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9515855 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392616-kwin-zones/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09515855-kwin-zones/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 can't get this to build in current rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138112330 Please have a look.
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kwin-zones/kwin-zones.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kwin-zones/kwin-zones-1.0.11-1.fc43.src.rpm Updated with patch to fix issues building on Qt 6.10
Created attachment 2109575 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9515855 to 9684261
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9684261 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392616-kwin-zones/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09684261-kwin-zones/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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. Seems to plugins, naken *.so files are fine in such context. [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: [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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "MIT License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/trosten/fedora/review/2392616-kwin-zones/licensecheck.txt [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]: %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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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 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 461 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [s]: 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 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: kwin-zones-1.0.11-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm kwin-zones-1.0.11-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpaocc_yaz')] checks: 32, packages: 2 kwin-zones.spec: W: no-%check-section kwin-zones.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kwin-zones/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 11 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kwin-zones-debuginfo-1.0.11-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpomoj6h4_')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 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: 2 kwin-zones.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/kwin/plugins/KWinZones.so /lib64/libKF6ConfigGui.so.6 kwin-zones.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kwin-zones/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 19 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- kwin-zones: /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/kwin/plugins/KWinZones.so kwin-zones: /usr/lib64/qt6/qml/org/kde/zones/libQtZonesQuick.so Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/automotive/kwin-zones/-/archive/1.0.11/kwin-zones-1.0.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 25a66c7dad0dd0936b51d5aeff358d7664f549e264c2b7cd37c17cb26e8636a0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 25a66c7dad0dd0936b51d5aeff358d7664f549e264c2b7cd37c17cb26e8636a0 Requires -------- kwin-zones (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libKF6ConfigCore.so.6()(64bit) libKF6ConfigGui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.10)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6.10_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) libQt6Qml.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Qml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6WaylandClient.so.6()(64bit) libQt6WaylandClient.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libkwin.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-server.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- kwin-zones: kwin-zones kwin-zones(x86-64) libQtZonesQuick.so()(64bit) qt6qml(org.kde.zones) a) # UPSTREAMABLE: Patch to fix building against QtGuiPrivate on Qt 6.10 # Isn't mine to upstream though. You found it elsewhere, you mean? b) Can you please ping upstream about: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kwin-zones/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt
Would be nice to be somewhat more verbose: "Wayland ext-zones for KWin" is rather cryptic?
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kwin-zones/kwin-zones.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kwin-zones/kwin-zones-1.0.11-1.fc43.src.rpm Updated patch comment
Package is APPROVED.
(In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #7) > Would be nice to be somewhat more verbose: "Wayland ext-zones for KWin" is > rather cryptic? Yeah there's not much better ways to describe it to be honest, it is a spec extension to the wayland spec to allow for extended zones in kwin. It's rather technical in itself. Heck, not even sure why that is in the Automotive namespace in their gitlab. I also updated the comment for the patch. It wasn't built by me, it was made by Jan Grulich in our Fedora KDE channel on Matrix. I didn't want to misappropriate credit but he gave me permission. > b) Can you please ping upstream about: > E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kwin-zones/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt Done: https://invent.kde.org/automotive/kwin-zones/-/issues?show=eyJpaWQiOiIyIiwiZnVsbF9wYXRoIjoiYXV0b21vdGl2ZS9rd2luLXpvbmVzIiwiaWQiOjUwMTU0fQ%3D%3D
Oops can you reset the + flag please? Seems my reply undid it.
Ack, thanks for comments.
Thank you for the review, Terje
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kwin-zones
Submitted to stable