https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978188 --- Comment #9 from niohiani <notinsideofhereiamnotinside@xxxxxxxxx> --- Alright thanks Ankur! In regard to the items which can only be manually reviewed, these all pass or are N/A: [✓]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [✓]: Package contains no static executables. [✓]: 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. [✓]: 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", "BSD (2 clause)". 99 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in Public/FedReviews/review-qt6ct/licensecheck.txt [✓]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/qt6/plugins/platformthemes(qt6-qtbase) [✓]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [✓]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [✓]: 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. [✓]: 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. [✓]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [✓]: 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. [✓]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [✓]: 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. I'm going to approve this. Godspeed! -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
