https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
Bug ID: 2182311 Summary: Review Request: kddockwidgets - Qt dock widget library Product: Fedora Version: 38 Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vascom2@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Vascom/kddockwidgets/main/kddockwidgets.sp... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3814/99223814/kddockwidgets-1...
Description: Qt dock widget library written by KDAB, suitable for replacing QDockWidget and implementing advanced functionalities missing in Qt.
Although KDDockWidgets is ready to be used out of the box, it can also be seen as a framework to allow building very tailored custom docking systems. It tries to expose every internal widget and every knob for the app developer to tune.
FAS username: vascom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/KDAB/KDD | |ockWidgets
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5715858 (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=2182311
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vitaly@easycoding.org CC| |vitaly@easycoding.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
Source0: %{url}%{version}/archive/refs/tags/v1.6.0.tar.gz
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-private-devel
Private API has no ABI compatibility, so you must pin to exact Qt version:
%{?_qt5:Requires: %{_qt5}%{?_isa} = %{_qt5_version}}
%cmake -G Ninja
Please add the correct build type, or fallback to Debug will be used implicitly:
%cmake -G Ninja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release
rm -r %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/doc
Why removing docs? I think they can be packaged to a -docs noarch subpackage.
%{_libdir}/libkddockwidgets.so.*
You must include soversion to prevent accidental bumps:
%{_libdir}/libkddockwidgets.so.1*
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
License: GPL-3.0-only
License: GPL-3.0-only AND GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
%license LICENSE.GPL.txt LICENSE.txt
%license LICENSES/*
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
--- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Vascom/kddockwidgets/main/kddockwidgets.sp... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3072/99233072/kddockwidgets-1...
Source0: corrected.
Private API requires added.
DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release added.
docs removed because it contain only licenses files. error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/doc/KDDockWidgets/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/doc/KDDockWidgets/LICENSES/BSD-3-Clause.txt /usr/share/doc/KDDockWidgets/LICENSES/GPL-2.0-only.txt /usr/share/doc/KDDockWidgets/LICENSES/GPL-3.0-only.txt /usr/share/doc/KDDockWidgets/README.md
soversion added.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1954130 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1954130&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5715858 to 5716432
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5716432 (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=2182311
--- Comment #8 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- 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]: 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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 151 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/kddockwidgets/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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 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]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: kddockwidgets-1.6.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm kddockwidgets-devel-1.6.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm kddockwidgets-debuginfo-1.6.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm kddockwidgets-debugsource-1.6.0-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm kddockwidgets-1.6.0-2.fc39.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/tmprh_dt_ku')] checks: 31, packages: 5
kddockwidgets-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kddockwidgets-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/kddockwidgets/FrameworkWidgetFactory /usr/include/kddockwidgets/DefaultWidgetFactory 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kddockwidgets-debuginfo-1.6.0-2.fc39.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/tmps0iy0dex')] 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/python3.11/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 checks: 31, packages: 4
kddockwidgets-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kddockwidgets-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/kddockwidgets/FrameworkWidgetFactory /usr/include/kddockwidgets/DefaultWidgetFactory 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/KDAB/KDDockWidgets/archive/v1.6.0/kddockwidgets-1.6.0.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 16ea63830a59e88bd338d72043d62086b7cef930b72a6c02c9071821f05637a2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 16ea63830a59e88bd338d72043d62086b7cef930b72a6c02c9071821f05637a2
Requires -------- kddockwidgets (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5_PRIVATE_API)(64bit) libQt5X11Extras.so.5()(64bit) libQt5X11Extras.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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) qt5-qtbase(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH)
kddockwidgets-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) kddockwidgets(x86-64) libkddockwidgets.so.1.6()(64bit)
kddockwidgets-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
kddockwidgets-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- kddockwidgets: kddockwidgets kddockwidgets(x86-64) libkddockwidgets.so.1.6()(64bit)
kddockwidgets-devel: cmake(KDDockWidgets) cmake(kddockwidgets) kddockwidgets-devel kddockwidgets-devel(x86-64)
kddockwidgets-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kddockwidgets-debuginfo kddockwidgets-debuginfo(x86-64) libkddockwidgets.so.1.6.0-1.6.0-2.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
kddockwidgets-debugsource: kddockwidgets-debugsource kddockwidgets-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name kddockwidgets --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Python, Java, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- LGTM now. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kddockwidgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-28 13:17:55
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2182311
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1874343 CC| |topazus@outlook.com
--- Comment #11 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- *** Bug 2181957 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874343 [Bug 1874343] hotspot-1.4.1 is available
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com