https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
Bug ID: 2255813 Summary: Review Request: liquidshell - Basic desktop shell using QtWidgets Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: topazus@outlook.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/liquidshell.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/liquidshell-1.9.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Basic desktop shell using QtWidgets Fedora Account System Username: topazus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/liquidshell.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/liquidshell-1.9.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://apps.kde.org/liquid | |shell/
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6848275 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |davide@cavalca.name CC| |davide@cavalca.name
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Taking this review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. [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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2255813-liquidshell/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 3242 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). [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: liquidshell-1.9.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm liquidshell-debuginfo-1.9.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm liquidshell-debugsource-1.9.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm liquidshell-1.9.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk7259eql')] checks: 31, packages: 4
liquidshell.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary liquidshell liquidshell.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary start_liquidshell liquidshell.spec:21: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 21) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: liquidshell-debuginfo-1.9.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_otc4zcg')] 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: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 3
liquidshell.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('plasmashell', '%description -l en_US plasmashell -> plasma shell, plasma-shell, seashell') liquidshell.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('systemsettings', '%description -l en_US systemsettings -> system settings, system-settings, systematization') liquidshell.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('css', '%description -l en_US css -> CSS, cs, cuss') liquidshell.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('commandline', '%description -l en_US commandline -> command line, command-line, commandment') liquidshell.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stylesheet', '%description -l en_US stylesheet -> style sheet, style-sheet, stylishness') liquidshell.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary liquidshell liquidshell.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary start_liquidshell 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings, 14 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://download.kde.org/stable/liquidshell/liquidshell-1.9.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dfc450fcead1cfbcb071ebfcf2fbf88e6ae8658b2448382128a42c9bc7773951 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfc450fcead1cfbcb071ebfcf2fbf88e6ae8658b2448382128a42c9bc7773951
Requires -------- liquidshell (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash kf5-knotifications ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libKF5Archive.so.5()(64bit) libKF5BluezQt.so.6()(64bit) libKF5ConfigCore.so.5()(64bit) libKF5ConfigWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Crash.so.5()(64bit) libKF5DBusAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit) libKF5IconThemes.so.5()(64bit) libKF5ItemViews.so.5()(64bit) libKF5KCMUtils.so.5()(64bit) libKF5KIOCore.so.5()(64bit) libKF5KIOGui.so.5()(64bit) libKF5KIOWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libKF5NetworkManagerQt.so.6()(64bit) libKF5NewStuff.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Notifications.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Service.so.5()(64bit) libKF5Solid.so.5()(64bit) libKF5WidgetsAddons.so.5()(64bit) libKF5WindowSystem.so.5()(64bit) libKF5XmlGui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5X11Extras.so.5()(64bit) libQt5X11Extras.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpackagekitqt5.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
liquidshell-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
liquidshell-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- liquidshell: application() application(org.kde.liquidshell.desktop) liquidshell liquidshell(aarch-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.kde.liquidshell.appdata.xml)
liquidshell-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) liquidshell-debuginfo liquidshell-debuginfo(aarch-64)
liquidshell-debugsource: liquidshell-debugsource liquidshell-debugsource(aarch-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2255813 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Python, fonts, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name ---
liquidshell.spec:21: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 21)
Please fix this on import. No issues otherwise, so it's APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liquidshell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-78e0f37d9b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-78e0f37d9b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255813
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-01-03 01:09:13
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-78e0f37d9b has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com