Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog-0.47.1-1.fc43.src.rpm COPR qbuild: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fale/qlog/build/9971738/ Description: QLog is an Amateur Radio logging application for Linux, Windows and Mac OS. It is based on the Qt 5 framework and uses SQLite as database backend. Fedora Account System Username: fale
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9973489 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2426937-qlog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09973489-qlog/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Please add an appdata file: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ There is an option to build with Qt6: https://github.com/foldynl/QLog/blob/master/.github/workflows/c-cpp.yml#L48 assuming it works correctly, that would be preferred to Qt5 which will not receive any updates.
Thanks! I've integrated the suggestions :) Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog-0.47.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2121301 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9973489 to 9979723
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9979723 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2426937-qlog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09979723-qlog/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.
New version is available: Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog-0.48.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141879749
Created attachment 2128178 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9979723 to 10093777
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10093777 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2426937-qlog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10093777-qlog/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.
New version is available: Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog-0.50.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=144903956
> ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64 I'm guessing this is because of qtwebengine? In which case, you should use %{qt6_qtwebengine_arches} here. > Source0: https://github.com/foldynl/QLog/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz You can avoid the #/ renaming trick by using ".../tags/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz". > %description > It is based on the Qt 5 framework and uses SQLite as database backend. You're building with Qt6, so drop the number here or change it to 6.
Thanks a lot Artur, I've implemented your suggestions :). New version is available: Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog-0.50.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145085278
Created attachment 2139365 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10093777 to 10421890
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10421890 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2426937-qlog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10421890-qlog/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.
> License: GPL-3.0-or-later This covers only original code, but it seems there are some files borrowed from other projects which are under different licences. Running licensecheck says: > BSD 3-Clause License > -------------------- > qlog-0.50.0-build/QLog-0.50.0/core/zonedetect.c > qlog-0.50.0-build/QLog-0.50.0/core/zonedetect.h > qlog-0.50.0-build/QLog-0.50.0/devtools/timezones/builder/builder.cpp > > MIT License > ----------- > qlog-0.50.0-build/QLog-0.50.0/core/csv.hpp > > ODC Open Database License v1.0 > ------------------------------ > qlog-0.50.0-build/QLog-0.50.0/devtools/timezones/timezone_DATA_LICENSE Also, looking at the upstream code, it seems that there's a file containing timezone data, at "res/data/timezone21.bin". Is this file embedded into the executable? If it is, then its license should also be taken into account. If it's not embedded - is it loaded at runtime? It's not included in the resulting RPM package.
Thanks Artur! "res/data/timezone21.bin" is embedded. I've added the additional licenses and bumped to the newest version. Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog-0.51.0-1.fc44.src.rpm Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146666961
> License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND ODbL-1.0 Please add a comment to the spec file, explaining the licensing breakdown. > Source1: LICENSE.BSD-3-Clause > Source2: LICENSE.MIT These licenses could probably be extracted from the relevant files using some awk trickery, but this is also okay. > %{qmake_qt6} PREFIX=%{_prefix} -r %{_qt6_qmake_flags} QMAKE_CFLAGS+="-fPIC -fPIE" QMAKE_CXXFLAGS+="-fPIC -fPIE" QMAKE_LFLAGS="${RPM_LD_FLAGS} -pie -Wl,--as-needed" Avoid mixing $RPM_ shell vars and %{macros}. You can use %{build_ldflags} instead of $RPM_LD_FLAGS here. > desktop-file-install --delete-original --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop If the desktop file is already installed by %make_install, you don't need to run desktop-file-install separately. > %files > %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps/%{name}.png This necessitates "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme".
Thanks Artur, this is genuinely some of the most useful review feedback I've gotten on a package :). * License comment: Added a comment in the spec explaining the breakdown * RPM_LD_FLAGS: Switched to %{build_ldflags} * desktop-file-install: %make_install already installs the .desktop file, so removed the separate call * hicolor-icon-theme: Added Requires: hicolor-icon-theme Also bumped to the latest upstream release, 0.51.1. New version: Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/qlog/qlog-0.51.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Koji scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148298668 Let me know if anything else needs fixing :).
Looks okay to me. APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: 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: [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. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 60815 bytes in 2 files. [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 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 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: qlog-0.51.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm qlog-0.51.1-1.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/tmpi9v12slr')] checks: 32, packages: 2 qlog.src: W: invalid-license ODbL-1.0 qlog.x86_64: W: invalid-license ODbL-1.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qlog-debuginfo-0.51.1-1.fc45.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/tmphzuev_14')] checks: 32, packages: 1 qlog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ODbL-1.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 4.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 2 qlog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ODbL-1.0 qlog.x86_64: W: invalid-license ODbL-1.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/foldynl/QLog/archive/refs/tags/v0.51.1/qlog-0.51.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 997a6ca09b05bd7cbbfb087c41e92a619feee6584bfb8d7f45b863d6e1293657 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 997a6ca09b05bd7cbbfb087c41e92a619feee6584bfb8d7f45b863d6e1293657 Requires -------- qlog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Charts.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Charts.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.11)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6()(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6SerialPort.so.6()(64bit) libQt6SerialPort.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Sql.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Sql.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6WebChannel.so.6()(64bit) libQt6WebChannel.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6WebEngineCore.so.6()(64bit) libQt6WebEngineCore.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6WebEngineWidgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6WebEngineWidgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6WebSockets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6WebSockets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.4()(64bit) libcrypto.so.4(OPENSSL_4.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhamlib.so.4()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libqt6keychain.so.1()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- qlog: application() application(qlog.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(io.github.foldynl.QLog.metainfo.xml) qlog qlog(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2426937 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qlog Monitoring: Anitya project is accessible by this link `https://release-monitoring.org/project/387435` you can modify it manually. Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.
FEDORA-2026-a6c0c39a12 (qlog-0.51.1-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a6c0c39a12
FEDORA-2026-a6c0c39a12 (qlog-0.51.1-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.