https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665 --- Comment #3 from Steve Cossette <farchord@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello rajesh, Yes i am aware of those licenses. I did not add them as, even though they are in the folder, they go unused (according to reuse lint). I will look at the require. (In reply to Rajeesh from comment #2) > Package review: some corrections required. > > 1. License: add missing licenses (ref. > https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kjobwidgets/-/tree/master/ > LICENSES?ref_type=heads) > 2. Minor nit: add an empty line between 'BuildRequires' and 'Requires' to > help readability > > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [-] Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [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) > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > 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. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses > found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. > [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. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces, > /usr/share/dbus-1 > [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. > [?]: 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 > [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 276 bytes in 1 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. > [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [?]: 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. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [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: kf6-kjobwidgets-5.240.0^20231001.123235.e058145-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > > kf6-kjobwidgets-devel-5.240.0^20231001.123235.e058145-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > > kf6-kjobwidgets-debuginfo-5.240.0^20231001.123235.e058145-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > > kf6-kjobwidgets-debugsource-5.240.0^20231001.123235.e058145-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > kf6-kjobwidgets-5.240.0^20231001.123235.e058145-1.fc40.src.rpm > ============================================================================= > ======================== rpmlint session starts > ============================================================================= > ======================== > rpmlint: 2.4.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml > rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp99qvztyw')] > checks: 31, packages: 5 > > kf6-kjobwidgets-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > kf6-kjobwidgets.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/licenses/kf6-kjobwidgets/LGPL-2.0-or-later.txt > /usr/share/licenses/kf6-kjobwidgets/LGPL-2.0-only.txt > ====================================================================== 5 > packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken > 0.6 s ====================================================================== > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: > kf6-kjobwidgets-debuginfo-5.240.0^20231001.123235.e058145-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > ============================================================================= > ======================== rpmlint session starts > ============================================================================= > ======================== > rpmlint: 2.4.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml > rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2gtf41br')] > checks: 31, packages: 1 > > ====================================================================== 1 > packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken > 0.2 s ====================================================================== > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > ============================ rpmlint session starts > ============================ > rpmlint: 2.4.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml > checks: 31, packages: 4 > > kf6-kjobwidgets-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > kf6-kjobwidgets.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/licenses/kf6-kjobwidgets/LGPL-2.0-or-later.txt > /usr/share/licenses/kf6-kjobwidgets/LGPL-2.0-only.txt > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has > taken 0.4 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kjobwidgets/-/archive/ > e058145a9f85f34e51c82349bc3bb2bcd666f5ce/kjobwidgets-e058145.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 19f6a2a3b2083fab867977d1a5802f6d50c756229fb1ed519e711ab890020a4f > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 19f6a2a3b2083fab867977d1a5802f6d50c756229fb1ed519e711ab890020a4f > > > Requires > -------- > kf6-kjobwidgets (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > kf6-filesystem > libKF6CoreAddons.so.6()(64bit) > libKF6Notifications.so.6()(64bit) > libKF6WidgetsAddons.so.6()(64bit) > libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) > libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) > libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.5)(64bit) > libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) > libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) > libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) > libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) > libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6.5_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) > libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) > libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) > libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > kf6-kjobwidgets-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > cmake(KF6CoreAddons) > cmake-filesystem(x86-64) > kf6-kjobwidgets(x86-64) > libKF6JobWidgets.so.6()(64bit) > qt6-qtbase-devel > > kf6-kjobwidgets-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > kf6-kjobwidgets-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > kf6-kjobwidgets: > kf6-kjobwidgets > kf6-kjobwidgets(x86-64) > libKF6JobWidgets.so.6()(64bit) > > kf6-kjobwidgets-devel: > cmake(KF6JobWidgets) > cmake(kf6jobwidgets) > kf6-kjobwidgets-devel > kf6-kjobwidgets-devel(x86-64) > > kf6-kjobwidgets-debuginfo: > debuginfo(build-id) > kf6-kjobwidgets-debuginfo > kf6-kjobwidgets-debuginfo(x86-64) > > libKF6JobWidgets.so.5.240.0-5.240.0^20231001.123235.e058145-1.fc40.x86_64. > debug()(64bit) > > kf6-kjobwidgets-debugsource: > kf6-kjobwidgets-debugsource > kf6-kjobwidgets-debugsource(x86-64) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242665 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Python, PHP, R, Perl, Haskell, fonts, > SugarActivity > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202242665%23c3 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
