https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917278 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- It looks like this package bypassed the review process and was already created in dist-git: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt6-qtsvg. I’m utterly confused by that. Anyway, here’s how I would have reviewed it: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - License is incorrect: # See LGPL_EXCEPTIONS.txt, LICENSE.GPL3, respectively, for exception details License: LGPLv2 with exceptions or GPLv3 with exceptions The file LGPL_EXCEPTIONS.txt does not exist, and the file LICENSE.GPL3 does not contain the exceptions. Furthermore, dist/changes-5.7.0 says: **************************************************************************** * Important License Changes * **************************************************************************** This module is no longer available under LGPLv2.1. The libraries are now available under the following licenses: * Commercial License * GNU General Public License v2.0 (LICENSE.GPL2) and later * GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 (LICENSE.LGPL3) The tools are now available under the following licenses: * Commercial License * GNU General Public License 3.0 (LICENSE.GPL3) with exceptions described in The Qt Company GPL Exception 1.0 (LICENSE.GPL3-EXCEPT) It looks like this package contains only “libraries” and no “tools.” Therefore, the license should be: # See dist/changes-5.7.0 for license details. License: LGPLv3 or GPLv2+ and instead of %license LICENSE.* there should be only the relevant license files, plus the changelog entry that explains the licensing: %license dist/changes-5.7.0 LICENSE.GPL3 LICENSE. If you choose to package the examples, the subpackage containing them would have other licenses: License: BSD and GFDL %license LICENSE.FDL and you should query upstream to include the relevant BSD license in a separate file as well. - GPL exception “The Qt Company GPL Exception 1.0” is not listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses. If it were applicable, I would ask you to please clear it by emailing legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, or finding a past decision on it, and link to the result in a comment. However, since there are no “tools,” it seems this exception does not apply anyway. - All shared libraries define rpath $ORIGIN; see rpmlint output. - Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/Qt6BuildInternals/StandaloneTests, /usr/share/qt6/modules Maybe qt6-qtbase should create and own these? - The package Provides: the shared libraries corresponding to the Qt plugins; these must be filtered out since, as far as I can tell, they are not accessible through the system library paths. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/. - Since I am pretty sure you are not trying to support EPEL7, you should remove %ldconfig_scriptlets. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output All shared libraries define rpath $ORIGIN. [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. Exceptions are QT plugins, which do need to be unversioned. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) 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. Note that I could not find a decision on the record about The Qt Company GPL Exception 1.0, but it does not appear to apply to any portion of this package. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 257 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1917278-qt6-qtsvg/licensecheck.txt See Issues. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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/lib64/cmake/Qt6BuildInternals/StandaloneTests, /usr/share/qt6/modules [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/qt6/modules, /usr/lib64/cmake/Qt6BuildInternals/StandaloneTests [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. [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 (except as otherwise noted) [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]: 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 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: [-]: 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). Qt Plugins should not be in Provides; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/. [?]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. See tests/README; requirements for the tests are impractical. [x]: 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: qt6-qtsvg-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm qt6-qtsvg-devel-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm qt6-qtsvg-debugsource-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm qt6-qtsvg-6.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 6.0.0 ['6.0.0-1.fc34', '6.0.0-1'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libQt6Svg.so.6.0.0 ['$ORIGIN'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6.0.0 ['$ORIGIN'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/iconengines/libqsvgicon.so ['$ORIGIN/../../../'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/imageformats/libqsvg.so ['$ORIGIN/../../../'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: no-documentation qt6-qtsvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation qt6-qtsvg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- qt6-qtsvg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 6.0.0 ['6.0.0-1.fc34', '6.0.0-1'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libQt6Svg.so.6.0.0 ['$ORIGIN'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6.0.0 ['$ORIGIN'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/iconengines/libqsvgicon.so ['$ORIGIN/../../../'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/imageformats/libqsvg.so ['$ORIGIN/../../../'] qt6-qtsvg.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- qt6-qtsvg: /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/iconengines/libqsvgicon.so qt6-qtsvg: /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/imageformats/libqsvg.so Source checksums ---------------- https://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/6.0/6.0.0/submodules/qtsvg-everywhere-src-6.0.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9703c9a69e21ad373fb52d0107338da7ef0a46966f69107b0d879e9c366dd91b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9703c9a69e21ad373fb52d0107338da7ef0a46966f69107b0d879e9c366dd91b Requires -------- qt6-qtsvg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.0)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) qt6-qtbase(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) qt6-qtsvg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit) libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6()(64bit) qt6-qtbase-devel(x86-64) qt6-qtsvg(x86-64) qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qt6-qtsvg-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- qt6-qtsvg: libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit) libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6()(64bit) libqsvg.so()(64bit) libqsvgicon.so()(64bit) qt6-qtsvg qt6-qtsvg(x86-64) qt6-qtsvg-devel: cmake(Qt6QSvgIconPlugin) cmake(Qt6QSvgPlugin) cmake(Qt6Svg) cmake(Qt6SvgWidgets) cmake(QtSvgTests) cmake(qt6qsvgiconplugin) cmake(qt6qsvgplugin) cmake(qt6svg) cmake(qt6svgwidgets) cmake(qtsvgtests) qt6-qtsvg-devel qt6-qtsvg-devel(x86-64) qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo qt6-qtsvg-debuginfo(x86-64) qt6-qtsvg-debugsource: qt6-qtsvg-debugsource qt6-qtsvg-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1917278 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, R, Java, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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
