https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868848 --- Comment #2 from Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01@xxxxxxxxx> --- > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" > License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)". 111 files > have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-qt/fcitx5-qt/licensecheck.txt > Review: see earlier comment. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/fcitx5, /usr/lib64/fcitx5/qt5 > Review: The main package can probably own the entire > %{_libdir}/fcitx5/qt5/ dir, > but it also needs a "Requires: fcitx5" entry. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/fcitx5, > /usr/lib64/fcitx5/qt5 > Review: as above. fixed > [!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > Review: It doesn't and one should probably be generated. no executables in this package is designed to be called by the user, this package provides - QT libraries for other fcitx5 components - a qt5 warper > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > Review: 1 missing - see earlier comment about fcitx5. added fcitx5, should own the files. > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. generated on copr https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01618243-fcitx5-qt/fcitx5-qt-debugsource-0-0.2.git3ddd34a.fc34.x86_64.rpm > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [-]: 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). > Review: yes, but see earlier comments about fcitx5. > [?]: Package functions as described. Being tested by FZUG members : ) > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: Mock build failed > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_use_rpmlint It builds in copr. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: fcitx5-qt-0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a.fc32.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-qt-devel-0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a.fc32.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-qt-debuginfo-0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a.fc32.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-qt-debugsource-0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a.fc32.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-qt-0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a.fc32.src.rpm > fcitx5-qt.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog > 0-0.2.20200811git3ddd34a ['0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a.fc32', > '0-0.2.20200812git3ddd34a'] Now, the version strings is different on F34 and any old version, while 0-0.N should make the update and changelog meanful > fcitx5-qt-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary > fcitx5-qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > fcitx5-qt.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: > 0001-use-usr-libexec-instead.patch The patch is applied, which can be confirmed in the build log. > 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > > > > > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > fcitx5-qt: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/qt5/libfcitx-quickphrase-editor5.so > fcitx5-qt: > /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/platforminputcontexts/ > libfcitx5platforminputcontextplugin.so They are for internal usage only and excluded from provides. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
