Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/kraft.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/kraft-2.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm description: Kraft is a Qt/KF6 based linux desktop software with a strong focus on ease of use and the just enough feature set for the use case. With Kraft, creating documents will run smooth and free time for more enjoyable things than office work. Check out the website http://volle-kraft-voraus.de for more information. Kraft runs on your Linux desktop. No cloud involved, your data stays with you! With Kraft, writing documents like quotes and invoices is very easy and fast. Repeating tasks are supported, documents can be generated semi automatically, ie. invoices from offers sent out before. For efficient work, Kraft supports catalogs to organize materials and template items. It focuses on high quality printouts because paper is still the main communication media in the small business world. However, it also sends documents via email and supports electronic invoicing with XRechnung. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
Curious, is there a reason why you started using cmake() BRs and then switched to package names? I think it might be a good idea to reference all of the cmake BRs in the spec for futureproofing (In case the cmake modules get moved around for example). Also, you have cmake(Qt6Core) and qt6-qtbase-devel referenced which are the same thing. kf6-rpm-macros needs to be added as a BR too. While this isn't an official KDE project, you should probably also use %cmake_kf6 instead of %cmake
Thanks for the feedback. Updated: spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/kraft.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/kraft-2.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm plama-breeze-qt6 does not seem to have a CMake file nor a pkgconfig file: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plasma-breeze/blob/rawhide/f/plasma-breeze.spec
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10065208 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2428466-kraft/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10065208-kraft/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/kraft.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/kraft-2.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10082120 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2428466-kraft/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10082120-kraft/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/kraft.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/kraft-2.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Build fails with %cmake_kf6 so will use %cmake
That's an interesting app. I might consider using it personally and I'll review it.
Actually the package in a very good shape and I have just one small proposal - src/3rdparty contents is clearly licensed under MIT license. IANAL but it swallowed by GPLv2+ license of the rest of the sources. You might consider using SourceLicense and License tags where the 1st will have "GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT" and the latter contains just "GPL-2.0-or-later" Not a blocker. Also `findcontact` utility name sounds really too generic. Also not a blocker (we do not create any conflicts right now). So here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ^^^ false positive. Now sure why it triggers on my machine. ===== 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 (GPLv2+). See my note above. [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. [-]: No development files. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No large documentation . [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]: 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (2.0.0). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: No extremely large data in /usr/share. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5980160 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: kraft-2.0.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm kraft-2.0.0-1.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/tmpflfnnnjk')] checks: 32, packages: 2 kraft.src: E: spelling-error ('ie', '%description -l en_US ie -> IE, i, e') kraft.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ie', '%description -l en_US ie -> IE, i, e') kraft.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/kraft/tools/watermarkpdf.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 kraft.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary findcontact kraft.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kraft kraft.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kraft/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.6 s ^^^ All these issues are either false-positives or acceptable. Specifically incorrect-fsf-address should be addressed upstream not us. We should not touch any licensing information at all. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kraft-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.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/tmphwz1g5i3')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 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 kraft.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ie', '%description -l en_US ie -> IE, i, e') kraft.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/kraft/tools/watermarkpdf.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 kraft.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary findcontact kraft.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kraft kraft.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kraft/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 22 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dragotin/kraft/archive/v2.0.0/kraft-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8da453c62a54ad67c711a295a4d562cf856a95253eade1701e0945a83da28571 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8da453c62a54ad67c711a295a4d562cf856a95253eade1701e0945a83da28571 Requires -------- kraft (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libKF6ConfigCore.so.6()(64bit) libKF6ConfigGui.so.6()(64bit) libKF6Contacts.so.6()(64bit) libKF6CoreAddons.so.6()(64bit) libKF6I18n.so.6()(64bit) libKF6TextTemplate.so.6()(64bit) libKPim6AkonadiContactCore.so.6()(64bit) libKPim6AkonadiContactWidgets.so.6()(64bit) libKPim6AkonadiCore.so.6()(64bit) libKPim6AkonadiWidgets.so.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) libQt6Sql.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Sql.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) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python3dist(pypdf) python3dist(reportlab) python3dist(weasyprint) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- kraft: application() application(de.volle_kraft_voraus.kraft.desktop) kraft kraft(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(de.volle_kraft_voraus.kraft.appdata.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2428466 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, Java, Python, fonts, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================