Bug 2403330 - Review Request: kretro - Play your favorite games across Plasma platforms
Summary: Review Request: kretro - Play your favorite games across Plasma platforms
Keywords:
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://apps.kde.org/kretro/
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-10-12 02:43 UTC by Steve Cossette
Modified: 2025-11-26 01:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Steve Cossette 2025-10-12 02:43:34 UTC
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kretro/kretro.spec
SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kretro/kretro-0.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm

Description:
Play your favorite games across Plasma platforms.

Fedora Account System Username: farchord

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-20 15:55:42 UTC
Hello,
I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been
reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package
builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer.

If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my
apologies, feel free to close it.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-20 16:03:14 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9820257
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2403330-kretro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09820257-kretro/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 3 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2025-11-23 16:17:28 UTC
> License:        FSFAP AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT AND CC0-1.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND Unlicense AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-only AND BSD-3-Clause AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later
Please add a comment describing the licensing breakdown.

> desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/org.kde.kretro.desktop
> appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml
Arguably, this should be moved from %install to %check.

Also, rpmlint says:
> E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt
> E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/LGPL-2.0-or-later.txt
> E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/LGPL-2.1-only.txt
Might be good to report this upstream.

Comment 4 Steve Cossette 2025-11-26 01:35:28 UTC
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #3)
> > License:        FSFAP AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT AND CC0-1.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND Unlicense AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-only AND BSD-3-Clause AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later
> Please add a comment describing the licensing breakdown.
So I should include the breakdown/output from reuse? I can, but it can be quite lengthy and, as it's a brand new piece of software it is subject to changes (It's highly likely)...

> > desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/org.kde.kretro.desktop
> > appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/*.metainfo.xml
> Arguably, this should be moved from %install to %check.
Yeah it can be in either.

> Also, rpmlint says:
> > E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt
> > E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/LGPL-2.0-or-later.txt
> > E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kretro/LGPL-2.1-only.txt
> Might be good to report this upstream.
Regarding this one... I downloaded fresh licenses using reuse, and the licenses were identical. Guessing the lint errors are wrong?


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