Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10650219-noctalia/noctalia.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10650219-noctalia/noctalia-5.0.0~%5E1.4ea8ea3-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: Noctalia is a native Wayland desktop shell for people who want a polished, configurable Linux desktop without stitching together a separate bar, launcher, notification daemon, lock screen, wallpaper tool, and settings UI. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10650526 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2493188-noctalia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10650526-noctalia/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.
I'll take this review.
At a quick glance it looks like the LICENSE-* licenses are being missed in the %files section %prep # Move bundled licenses to the top level to make inclusion in %%files easier. mv third_party/nlohmann/LICENSE-APACHE-2.0 LICENSE-Apache-2.0.nlohmann_json mv third_party/nlohmann/LICENSE-CC0-1.0 LICENSE-CC0-1.0.nlohmann_json mv third_party/nlohmann/LICENSE-MIT LICENSE-MIT.nlohmann_json mv third_party/wuffs/LICENSE-APACHE LICENSE-Apache-2.0.wuffs mv third_party/wuffs/LICENSE-MIT LICENSE-MIT.wuffs %files %license LICENSE LICENSE.*
Whoops, thanks for catching that. I switched the wildcard to `LICENSE*` to catch them all. I also have been working with upstream to add a meson flag to build against the system tomlplusplus instead of the vendored copy. It hasn't been merged upstream yet, but I've included the PR as a patch. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10662165-noctalia/noctalia.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10662165-noctalia/noctalia-5.0.0~%5E1.f81d75b-1.fc45.src.rpm
That tomlplusplus PR has been merged, so here's a new build with a newer snapshot to drop the patch. It also fixes an rpmlint issue with shebang lines and adds a provides for the new bundled md4c library. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666316-noctalia/noctalia.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666316-noctalia/noctalia-5.0.0~%5E1.1d17e1d-1.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2147215 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10650526 to 10666414
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10666414 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2493188-noctalia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10666414-noctalia/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.
I worked with upstream to add a system_md4c meson flag, so this new build now buildrequires the system version and removes the bundled one. It also adds a dependency on hicolor-icon-theme to own the parent directories of the icons. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10669949-noctalia/noctalia.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10669949-noctalia/noctalia-5.0.0~%5E1.1190e5f-1.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2147401 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10666414 to 10670064
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10670064 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2493188-noctalia/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10670064-noctalia/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.
Package approved! See below for review checklist... Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "MIT No Attribution and/or The Unlicense", "MIT License and/or The Unlicense", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license", "Apache License 2.0". 1178 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rcallico/Documents/rpms/fedora- review/2493188-noctalia/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: Package should compile and build 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:, %define commit 1190e5fecb347956cbe4f6a0e5a67e590143b62f, %define shortcommit %{sub %{commit} 1 7} [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5734400 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: noctalia-5.0.0~^1.1190e5f-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm noctalia-5.0.0~^1.1190e5f-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/tmprbcmni4z')] checks: 32, packages: 2 noctalia.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary noctalia noctalia.x86_64: W: no-documentation noctalia.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/noctalia/LICENSE-Apache-2.0.wuffs /usr/share/licenses/noctalia/LICENSE-Apache-2.0.nlohmann_json noctalia.spec:127: W: deprecated-grep ['egrep'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s # The files-duplicate warning is correct. Upstream provides these licenses so there is nothing to see here, it is a non-issue. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: noctalia-debuginfo-5.0.0~^1.1190e5f-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/tmp6_d05ov9')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 4.9 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 noctalia.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary noctalia noctalia.x86_64: W: no-documentation noctalia.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/noctalia/LICENSE-Apache-2.0.wuffs /usr/share/licenses/noctalia/LICENSE-Apache-2.0.nlohmann_json 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s # The files-duplicate warning is correct. Upstream provides these licenses so there is nothing to see here, it is a non-issue. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/noctalia-dev/noctalia/archive/1190e5fecb347956cbe4f6a0e5a67e590143b62f/noctalia-1190e5f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a6432f5cb70cb2c537d8b775edf0e5e6955a8c8a5951bf05f8cbad51e26636a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a6432f5cb70cb2c537d8b775edf0e5e6955a8c8a5951bf05f8cbad51e26636a Requires -------- noctalia (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc hicolor-icon-theme libEGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLESv2.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_12.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_13.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.3.0)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libharfbuzz.so.0()(64bit) libjemalloc.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmd4c.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpipewire-0.3.so.0()(64bit) libpolkit-agent-1.so.0()(64bit) libpolkit-gobject-1.so.0()(64bit) libqalculate.so.23()(64bit) librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit) libsdbus-c++.so.2()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtomlplusplus.so.3()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-egl.so.1()(64bit) libwebp.so.7()(64bit) libwireplumber-0.5.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- noctalia: application() application(dev.noctalia.Noctalia.desktop) bundled(dr_wav) bundled(fzy) bundled(json) bundled(luau) bundled(material_color_utilities) bundled(stb_image_resize2) bundled(stb_image_write) bundled(wuffs) noctalia noctalia(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2493188 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, PHP, Python, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/noctalia Monitoring: Anitya project is accessible by this link `https://release-monitoring.org/project/390630` you can modify it manually. Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.
FEDORA-2026-04b2160f04 (noctalia-5.0.0~^1.1190e5f-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-04b2160f04
FEDORA-2026-04b2160f04 (noctalia-5.0.0~^1.1190e5f-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.