https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193878 --- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.micheal@xxxxxxx> --- > Spec URL: http://n.ethz.ch/~bkueng/qmasterpassword/qmasterpassword.spec > SRPM URL: http://n.ethz.ch/~bkueng/qmasterpassword/qmasterpassword-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm fedora-review notices that the spec file at "Spec URL:" is different from the spec file in the src.rpm The changes in the spec file would have been a great opportunity to practise bumping the Release tag and maintaining the %changelog comments at the bottom: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes > # QLineEdit::clearButtonEnabled requires Qt 5.2 or higher > Requires: qt5-qtbase >= 5.2.0 First of all, adding %{?_isa} would be safer and would prevent package resolver tools from running into multiarch problems easily (that can happen when they run into unresolvable dependencies and pull in old multilib packages to satisfy dependencies). Secondly, your added comment indicates you fear that somebody might not have Qt >= 5.2 when installing qMasterPassword. When would that be the case? Qt older than 5.2.0 is very old: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=15742 Fedora 21 has started with 5.3.2 already: http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/21/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/q/qt5-qtbase-5.3.2-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm * fedora-review licensecheck.txt confirms that all source files are GPLv3. Okay. * fedora-review doesn't report any basic issues. Okay. * rpmlint output: | qmasterpassword.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qMasterPassword Acceptable, as it's a GUI. | qmasterpassword.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/qMasterPassword.appdata.xml Caution! This is because rpmlint runs "appdata-validate" on the file and therefore finds more issues that what is required by the guidelines. Let's take a look with appstream-util non-relaxed validate: $ appstream-util validate qMasterPassword.appdata.xml qMasterPassword.appdata.xml: FAILED: • tag-missing : <update_contact> is not present • tag-missing : <name> is not present • tag-missing : <url> is not present Validation of files failed These may be worth fixing upstream. Even when "validate-relax" says "OK", there are corner-cases when GNOME Software may not display the program. For example, Scribus is affected: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1231445 * Package listing: $ rpmls qmasterpassword -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/qMasterPassword -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/appdata/qMasterPassword.appdata.xml -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/applications/qMasterPassword.desktop drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/qmasterpassword -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/qmasterpassword/HISTORY -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/qmasterpassword/README.md drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/licenses/qmasterpassword -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/licenses/qmasterpassword/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/pixmaps/qmasterpassword.png Looks okay. * Some compiler warnings in the build.log: > main_window.cpp > warning: enumeration value 'Type_random_failed' not handled in switch Worth looking into. And switch-without-default is a matter of taste. ;-) * unit tests: If you like building unit tests to check against the build target environment early, the %check section would be the right place where to run them. * Else package looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review