Bug 2500937 - Review Request: kdominate - KDominate is a tactical game for one or two players
Summary: Review Request: kdominate - KDominate is a tactical game for one or two players
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Steve Cossette
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://invent.kde.org/games/kdominate
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-07-15 12:38 UTC by Christopher Klooz
Modified: 2026-08-03 16:56 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-08-03 16:56:28 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
farchord: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christopher Klooz 2026-07-15 12:38:36 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/py0xc3/kdominate/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10720543-kdominate/kdominate.spec
SRPM URL: https://packages.redhat.com/api/pulp-content/public-copr/py0xc3/kdominate/fedora-44-x86_64/Packages/k/kdominate-26.11.70~pre%5E07072026gitc3bad2b3-1.fc44.src.rpm
Description: KDominate is a tactical game for one or two players, where players place and convert tiles with the goal of controlling the majority of the board.
Fedora Account System Username: py0xc3

I tested the f44 build on a f44, it works fine: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/py0xc3/kdominate/build/10720543/

----

This is my first package for Fedora: I need a sponsor. I didn't do packaging for ~15 years but more recently it has proven several times as bottleneck within other Fedora projects. So I try to smoothly "return to packaging", learn how its done in Fedora and how to integrate it efficiently into my workflow. 

Starting with a new package feels like the best way to actively learn the current packaging of Fedora.

Currently, most of my activities are in the Security SIG, in which I am one of the sponsors. The same for the Discourse moderation. I guess many know me already :) 

If the review request is approved, I will also write a mail to the upstream maintainer, saying "hi", and see how and if we can help each other in future. Seems like a nice little game to have fun with :) 

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Steve Cossette 2026-07-15 12:56:23 UTC
Some early suggestions:

1- The versioning here seems wrong to me. You can find all of the possible use cases here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ (OR at least most of them). In this case, following something similar to how I have done with fielding (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fielding/blob/rawhide/f/fielding.spec) might make this an easy fix.

2- The version in the history is wrong

3- Put %cmake_kf6 in the %conf section (See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/KDEPackaging/#_available_macros) -- that is a new directive btw. The %conf section should be put after %prep.

4- For the sake of consistency,

BuildRequires: qt6-qtbase-devel
BuildRequires: qt6-qtsvg-devel

should be changed to 

BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6Core)
BuildRequires: cmake(Qt6Svg)

Comment 3 Steve Cossette 2026-07-15 17:59:21 UTC
A couple notes for when you import it in dist-git, but this isn't a blocker for this review:

Remove %cmake_kf6 from the %build section
(This is your decision) Use the rpmautospec automatic changelog generator on import

Otherwise, LGTM, builds and runs, and licenses are valid (NOTE: The review text says otherwise, it gives a bad fsf address. After double-checking, said address is correct, so.... /shrug).

PACKAGED APPROVED

To get sponsored, follow the directions here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/#how_to_find_a_sponsor

Enjoy!

Review.txt for reference:


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



===== 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", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "BSD
     3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No
     copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License,
     Version 2". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/farchord/Documents/Fedora/kdominate/2500937-kdominate/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kdominate
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kdominate, /usr/share/doc/HTML/en,
     /usr/share/config.kcfg, /usr/share/qlogging-categories6,
     /usr/share/doc/HTML
[ ]: %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.
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 59032 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: 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 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.
[ ]: 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: kdominate-26.11.70~20260706.012156.ecc0e858-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          kdominate-26.11.70~20260706.012156.ecc0e858-1.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/tmpp_le59xu')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

kdominate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kdominate
kdominate.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary KDominate
kdominate.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary KDominate
kdominate.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kdominate/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: kdominate-debuginfo-26.11.70~20260706.012156.ecc0e858-1.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/tmp_vqb_44d')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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

kdominate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kdominate
kdominate.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary KDominate
kdominate.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/kdominate/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://invent.kde.org/games/kdominate/-/archive/ecc0e858/kdominate-ecc0e858.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e1527c91cdc8d980bd961c35459a1ae9f48f7fcd62fbe0685d409f17fe71a564
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e1527c91cdc8d980bd961c35459a1ae9f48f7fcd62fbe0685d409f17fe71a564


Requires
--------
kdominate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    hicolor-icon-theme
    libKDEGames6.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6ConfigCore.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6ConfigGui.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6ConfigWidgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6CoreAddons.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6Crash.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6DBusAddons.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6I18n.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6IconThemes.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6WidgetsAddons.so.6()(64bit)
    libKF6XmlGui.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)
    libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Svg.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit)
    libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit)
    libc.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
--------
kdominate:
    application()
    application(org.kde.kdominate.desktop)
    kdominate
    kdominate(x86-64)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.kde.kdominate.metainfo.xml)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2500937
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 4 Yaakov Selkowitz 2026-07-15 18:38:54 UTC
Also, you should use `%find_lang %{name} --with-html` instead of the `%{_kf6_datadir}/doc/HTML/en/kdominate` file listings.

Comment 5 Christopher Klooz 2026-07-17 12:28:48 UTC
Optimized build at copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/py0xc3/kdominate/build/10737759/

> Remove %cmake_kf6 from the %build section

Implemented

> (This is your decision) Use the rpmautospec automatic changelog generator on import

I aim to use %autochangelog once everything has landed, but wanted to first find out how the system in general behaves before implementing this. Doing a step by step approach :) 

> Also, you should use `%find_lang %{name} --with-html` instead of the `%{_kf6_datadir}/doc/HTML/en/kdominate` file listings.

I was first confused by this point and how to link the first with the second part and with the existing "%find_lang %{name}" in the file. But it led to an interesting experience [1]. Thanks for it, implemented. 

---

[1] two potential suggestions to update the Docs: 
1) I wonder if it's worth to add this to the docs page not yet containing "--with-html" (only other variants contained, like --with-gnome) for the sake of discoverability?
2) it might be worth to mention explicitly that "%find_lang %{name} --with-html" does contain "%find_lang %{name}". That saves some time, I had to run several builds to see what fails and what not to find out for sure :)
Both not critical though!

Comment 6 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-08-03 14:03:53 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kdominate
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2026-08-03 16:51:47 UTC
FEDORA-2026-18a5741b8e (kdominate-26.11.70~20260706.012156.ecc0e858-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-18a5741b8e

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2026-08-03 16:56:28 UTC
FEDORA-2026-18a5741b8e (kdominate-26.11.70~20260706.012156.ecc0e858-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.