Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/basilcrow/qps/fedora-43-x86_64/09950233-qps/qps.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/basilcrow/qps/fedora-43-x86_64/09950233-qps/qps-2.12.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Qt process viewer and manager Fedora Account System Username: basilcrow
Taking this. First, could you please update the spec and srpm links to point to copr? You can point to one of your latest builds' chroots for this, i.e. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/basilcrow/qps/fedora-43-x86_64/09948426-qps/qps.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/basilcrow/qps/fedora-43-x86_64/09948426-qps/qps-2.12.0-1.fc43.src.rpm This way it'll be easier to review. Fedora review output: 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 does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qps See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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: [ ]: 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 General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 and/or Q Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 109 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/farchord/Documents/Fedora/qps-r/review- qps/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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]: 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 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 8328 bytes in 2 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: qps-2.12.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm qps-2.12.0-1.fc44.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/tmpiajdlp44')] checks: 32, packages: 2 qps.src: E: spelling-error ('iconified', '%description -l en_US iconified -> confided, confined') qps.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('iconified', '%description -l en_US iconified -> confided, confined') qps.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/qps/COPYING qps.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/qps 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qps-debuginfo-2.12.0-1.fc44.x86_64.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/tmp8m9xpwex')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 2 qps.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('iconified', '%description -l en_US iconified -> confided, confined') qps.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/qps/COPYING qps.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/qps 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lxqt/qps/releases/download/2.12.0/qps-2.12.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 76eb98b560e56b6a68b091e7ca2a4623d99f0b6106b181a7cc9e951352467004 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 76eb98b560e56b6a68b091e7ca2a4623d99f0b6106b181a7cc9e951352467004 https://github.com/lxqt/qps/releases/download/2.12.0/qps-2.12.0.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b16a5a6747bac4f119cf10f8c7cdcaddd177719bd0300307847cc1a2ab6c923f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b16a5a6747bac4f119cf10f8c7cdcaddd177719bd0300307847cc1a2ab6c923f Requires -------- qps (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme 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) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) liblxqt.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- qps: application() application(qps.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(org.lxqt.Qps.appdata.xml) qps qps(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n qps Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, PHP, Perl, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Regarding the wrong FSF address, I checked the license provided in the qps source and a fresh license downloaded using reuse, the physical address of the fsf in there is accurate, so not sure why this error is there. The "binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname" error is fine. Could you fix the spec URL and SRPM URL? Once you fix this, I'll double-check everything is still fine, and approve the package. Bonus points if you change the appdata %files line from %{_datadir}/metainfo/org.lxqt.Qps.appdata.xml To %{_metainfodir}/org.lxqt.Qps.appdata.xml
Thanks Steve, I have updated the spec URL and SRPM URL, as well as changing the appdata %files line from "%{_datadir}/metainfo/org.lxqt.Qps.appdata.xml" to "%{_metainfodir}/org.lxqt.Qps.appdata.xml" as requested.
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
This package follows the Fedora Packaging rules, and thus I will allow this. Good work on your first package! PACKAGE ALLOWED As this package already exists in fedora and is simply retired, you'll need to first get sponsorship (You already got someone in this specific case) and then follow https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming Happy packaging!
FEDORA-2026-9459029fb6 (qps-2.12.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-9459029fb6
FEDORA-2026-9459029fb6 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-9459029fb6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-9459029fb6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-9459029fb6 (qps-2.12.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.