Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sfaulken/Catppuccin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09907082-catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration/catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sfaulken/Catppuccin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09907082-catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration/catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-0.2.6-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Catppuccin is a soothing pastel theme for the high-spirited A community-driven color scheme meant for coding, designing, and much more This package provides the Classic Aurorae themes for the Plasma Desktop Fedora Account System Username: sfaulken Reproducible: Always
Package Installs, and builds successfully No lint message License is allowed No bad things in the package, this is approved: This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/catppuccin-classic-kde- decoration/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-0.2.6-1.fc45.noarch.rpm catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-frappe-0.2.6-1.fc45.noarch.rpm catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-latte-0.2.6-1.fc45.noarch.rpm catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-macchiato-0.2.6-1.fc45.noarch.rpm catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-mocha-0.2.6-1.fc45.noarch.rpm catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-0.2.6-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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/tmpa2g430ke')] checks: 32, packages: 6 catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Catpuccin', 'Summary(en_US) Catpuccin -> Cappuccino, Puccini') catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration.src: E: spelling-error ('Catpuccin', 'Summary(en_US) Catpuccin -> Cappuccino, Puccini') catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration.noarch: W: no-documentation catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-frappe.noarch: W: no-documentation catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-latte.noarch: W: no-documentation catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-macchiato.noarch: W: no-documentation catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-mocha.noarch: W: no-documentation catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration.spec: W: no-%check-section 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings, 23 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-mocha". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-latte". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-frappe". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-macchiato". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 5 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/catppuccin/kde/releases/download/v0.2.6/Classic-Aurorae-Theme.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5622fa6cadc8f82890c1e51d6a8c0aee0224984f05809208c7084680a6a22b08 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5622fa6cadc8f82890c1e51d6a8c0aee0224984f05809208c7084680a6a22b08 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/catppuccin/kde/refs/heads/main/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 814096d2c34cc216c624738a49356f32b7237733b4f7edb0685f4e50ef5074ba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 814096d2c34cc216c624738a49356f32b7237733b4f7edb0685f4e50ef5074ba Requires -------- catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-frappe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aurorae catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-latte (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aurorae catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-macchiato (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aurorae catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-mocha (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aurorae catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration Provides -------- catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration: catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-frappe: catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-frappe catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-latte: catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-latte catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-macchiato: catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-macchiato catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-mocha: catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration-mocha Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name catppuccin-classic-kde-decoration --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, Java, Perl, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Cancelled -- talked with packager, he has multiple segments of the theme in separate packages, a new review will be made to bring it all together for simplcity's sake.
I actually need some clarification on this, as to what you mean by "multiple segments of the theme in separate packages", because looking at this now, after getting home and having a few minutes, each of the package review submissions I've made here, the source packages are individual per submission, with their own individual download URLs from the upstream git repo, and on their own release schedules. If I smash them all together into one monster source package, I'm going to end up with Multiple source tarballs in a single source/spec/srpm, all on differing releases, and that way lies madness, I'd rather not do that.
Explained in matrix