https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873912 --- Comment #2 from Qiyu Yan <yanqiyu01@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > > BuildRequires: cmake(Fcitx5Core) > > BuildRequires: cmake(Fcitx5Qt5WidgetsAddons) > > That doesn't quite work in F32 in case the package should go into > pre-Rawhide tags as well. For newly built packages, the providing cmake(foo) is present see: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=23037752 for example > > The below works, though (fcitx5-qt-devel doesn't provide pkgconfig files) > per local tests: > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Fcitx5Core) > BuildRequires: fcitx5-qt-devel > > 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]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > Review: Internal to the package. Ignore warning. Files in question > below: > %{_libdir}/fcitx5/kkc.so > %{_libdir}/fcitx5/qt5/libfcitx5-kkc-config.so I will add %global __provides_exclude_from ^%{_libdir}/fcitx5/.*\\.so$ > [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > > Generic: > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > Note: Using prebuilt packages > Review: Tested in Koji by the submitter. > [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". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in > /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/fcitx5-kkc/fcitx5-kkc/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fcitx5/inputmethod > Review: A couple of other fcitx5 modules use that directory, but > nothing > owns it. It would make sense for fcitx5 or one of its subpackages to > own it then. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fcitx5/inputmethod > Review: see comment above. It is used by many fcitx5-* packages, I think it should be owned by fcitx5-data itself, see: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fcitx5/c/43fd7b82511fb4293ec9e48eb369736c4659d323?branch=master > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [?]: 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. > [-]: 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. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [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]: 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]: 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: > [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). > [x]: 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. > [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > Review: Tested in Koji by the submitter. > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > [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: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: fcitx5-kkc-0-0.1.20200831git7c6d0b5.fc34.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-kkc-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200831git7c6d0b5.fc34.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-kkc-debugsource-0-0.1.20200831git7c6d0b5.fc34.x86_64.rpm > fcitx5-kkc-0-0.1.20200831git7c6d0b5.fc34.src.rpm > fcitx5-kkc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Libkkc -> Lick > fcitx5-kkc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libkkc -> lick > fcitx5-kkc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Libkkc -> Lick > fcitx5-kkc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libkkc -> lick > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: fcitx5-kkc-debuginfo-0-0.1.20200831git7c6d0b5.fc34.x86_64.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > (none): E: no installed packages by name fcitx5-kkc > (none): E: no installed packages by name fcitx5-kkc-debugsource > (none): E: no installed packages by name fcitx5-kkc-debuginfo > 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > fcitx5-kkc: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/kkc.so > fcitx5-kkc: /usr/lib64/fcitx5/qt5/libfcitx5-kkc-config.so > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/fcitx/fcitx5-kkc/archive/ > 7c6d0b5a90878fd68bda5b5db6a9869ce4782a9b/fcitx5-kkc- > 7c6d0b5a90878fd68bda5b5db6a9869ce4782a9b.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > f77ef7b240a5738de11a713b6c7df18a95763cdac0149afdef5df7270185a5d1 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > f77ef7b240a5738de11a713b6c7df18a95763cdac0149afdef5df7270185a5d1 > > > Requires > -------- > fcitx5-kkc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > fcitx5-data > hicolor-icon-theme > libFcitx5Config.so.6()(64bit) > libFcitx5Core.so.6()(64bit) > libFcitx5Qt5WidgetsAddons.so.2()(64bit) > libFcitx5Utils.so.2()(64bit) > libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) > libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) > libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.14)(64bit) > libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) > libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) > libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) > libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(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) > libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > libkkc.so.2()(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > fcitx5-kkc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > fcitx5-kkc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > fcitx5-kkc: > fcitx5-kkc > fcitx5-kkc(x86-64) > libfcitx5-kkc-config.so()(64bit) > > fcitx5-kkc-debuginfo: > debuginfo(build-id) > fcitx5-kkc-debuginfo > fcitx5-kkc-debuginfo(x86-64) > > fcitx5-kkc-debugsource: > fcitx5-kkc-debugsource > fcitx5-kkc-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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
