5:28 p.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
Bug ID: 1921408
Summary: Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: marcdeop(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://marcdeop.fedorapeople.org/plasma-firewall.spec
SRPM URL:
https://marcdeop.fedorapeople.org/plasma-firewall-5.20.90-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description: Control Panel for your system firewall
Fedora Account System Username: marcdeop
--
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
5:40 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |ngompa13(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |ngompa13(a)gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Taking this review.
--
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
5:42 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #2 from marcdeop(a)fedoraproject.org ---
Output of fedora-review:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
- 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.
Note: License file metadata.desktop.license is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: 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 3-clause "New" or
"Revised"
License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
Domain Dedication", "*No copyright* FSF All Permissive License",
"GNU
General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public
License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License,
Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
3". 114 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/marc/rpmbuild/SRPMS/plasma-firewall/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/kcm_ufw
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/polkit-1/actions,
/usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kcms,
/usr/share/dbus-1/system.d, /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services,
/usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/kcm_ufw
[ ]: %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.
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: 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 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).
[ ]: 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.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: plasma-firewall-5.20.90-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-debuginfo-5.20.90-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-debugsource-5.20.90-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-5.20.90-1.fc34.src.rpm
plasma-firewall.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
plasma-firewall.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libkcm_firewall_core.so
libkcm_firewall_core.so
plasma-firewall.x86_64: W: no-documentation
plasma-firewall-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
plasma-firewall-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
plasma-firewall.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: plasma-firewall-debuginfo-5.20.90-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
plasma-firewall-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
plasma-firewall.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
plasma-firewall.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libkcm_firewall_core.so
libkcm_firewall_core.so
plasma-firewall.x86_64: W: no-documentation
plasma-firewall-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
plasma-firewall: /usr/lib64/libkcm_firewall_core.so
plasma-firewall: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kcms/kcm_firewall.so
plasma-firewall: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/plasma_firewall/firewalldbackend.so
plasma-firewall: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/plasma_firewall/ufwbackend.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma/5.20.90/plasma-firewall-5.20.90.t...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b3cafaf22ce0add35d460b111ce1df8bb673fccbc10cfe079cf12bd3ae72e527
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b3cafaf22ce0add35d460b111ce1df8bb673fccbc10cfe079cf12bd3ae72e527
Requires
--------
plasma-firewall (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
firewalld
libKF5AuthCore.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5ConfigCore.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5QuickAddons.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit)
libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Qml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libkcm_firewall_core.so()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
plasma-firewall-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
plasma-firewall-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
plasma-firewall:
libkcm_firewall_core.so()(64bit)
metainfo()
metainfo(org.kde.plasma.firewall.metainfo.xml)
plasma-firewall
plasma-firewall(x86-64)
plasma-firewall-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
plasma-firewall-debuginfo
plasma-firewall-debuginfo(x86-64)
plasma-firewall-debugsource:
plasma-firewall-debugsource
plasma-firewall-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n plasma-firewall -r
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell,
Java
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
5:47 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Initial pass through the spec:
License: BSD-3-Clause
License tag should be just "BSD", per the approved "short name" on the
license
list.
Cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Software_License_List
--
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
5:54 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #4 from marcdeop(a)fedoraproject.org ---
I was using an identifier from here: https://spdx.org/licenses/
Happy to change it to something Fedora accepts :-)
Updated the spec and srpm files
--
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
7:34 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
You're missing the following things in your spec:
* BuildRequires: gcc-c++
* BuildRequires: make
--
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
4:06 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #6 from marcdeop(a)fedoraproject.org ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5)
You're missing the following things in your spec:
* BuildRequires: gcc-c++
Is that really needed? I don't see that in other plasma spec files.
* BuildRequires: make
Wouldn't that better be "cmake" instead of "make"?
--
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
12:58 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to marcdeop from comment #6)
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5)
> You're missing the following things in your spec:
>
> * BuildRequires: gcc-c++
Is that really needed? I don't see that in other plasma spec files.
It is, since we do not guarantee a compiler in the build environment.
> * BuildRequires: make
Wouldn't that better be "cmake" instead of "make"?
Both are required.
--
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
1:09 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #8 from marcdeop(a)fedoraproject.org ---
Updated
--
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
4:04 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rdieter(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)gmail.com> ---
FYI,
make is needed by (installed) cmake-3.18.4-2.fc33.x86_64
gcc-c++ is needed by (installed) kf5-rpm-macros-5.78.0-1.fc33.noarch
gcc-c++ and make are ensured for any kf5/plasma pkg already.
--
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
5:33 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Created attachment 1752166
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1752166&action=edit
Patch of improvements to the spec
I noticed a significant degree of issues from fedora-review related to how
plasma-firewall ships both firewalld and ufw backends, and I made some changes
in the form of a patch to the spec that you should consider incorporating.
--
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
5:36 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment|0 |1
#1752166 is| |
obsolete| |
--- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Created attachment 1752167
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1752167&action=edit
Fixed patch of improvements to the spec
Oops, missing requires to base package...
--
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
5:37 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment|0 |1
#1752167 is| |
obsolete| |
--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Created attachment 1752168
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1752168&action=edit
Fixed patch of improvements to the spec
--
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
9:50 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://marcdeop.fedorapeople.org/plasma-firewall.spec
SRPM URL:
https://marcdeop.fedorapeople.org/plasma-firewall-5.20.90-4.fc33.src.rpm
Description: Control Panel for your system firewall
Fedora Account System Username: marcdeop
--
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
10:12 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
- 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.
Note: License file metadata.desktop.license is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised"
License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
Domain Dedication", "*No copyright* FSF All Permissive License",
"GNU
General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public
License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License,
Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
3". 114 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/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.
[!]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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 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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[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.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.8 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR =
mock-2.8-1.fc33)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.8
INFO: Mock Version: 2.8
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-debuginfo-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-ufw-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-firewalld-debuginfo-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-ufw-debuginfo-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-debugsource-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-firewalld-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-debuginfo-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-ufw-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-firewalld-debuginfo-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-ufw-debuginfo-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-debugsource-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-firewalld-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/ngompa/1921408-plasma-firewall/results/plasma-firewall-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: plasma-firewall-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-firewalld-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-ufw-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-debuginfo-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-debugsource-5.20.90-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm
plasma-firewall-5.20.90-4.fc34.src.rpm
plasma-firewall.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libkcm_firewall_core.so
libkcm_firewall_core.so
plasma-firewall.x86_64: W: no-documentation
plasma-firewall-firewalld.x86_64: W: no-documentation
plasma-firewall-ufw.x86_64: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
plasma-firewall: /usr/lib64/libkcm_firewall_core.so
plasma-firewall: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kcms/kcm_firewall.so
plasma-firewall-firewalld:
/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/plasma_firewall/firewalldbackend.so
plasma-firewall-ufw: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/plasma_firewall/ufwbackend.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://download.kde.org/unstable/plasma/5.20.90/plasma-firewall-5.20.90.t...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b3cafaf22ce0add35d460b111ce1df8bb673fccbc10cfe079cf12bd3ae72e527
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b3cafaf22ce0add35d460b111ce1df8bb673fccbc10cfe079cf12bd3ae72e527
Requires
--------
plasma-firewall (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
kf5-kcmutils(x86-64)
libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5QuickAddons.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit)
libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Qml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libkcm_firewall_core.so()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
plasma-firewall-backend
rtld(GNU_HASH)
plasma-firewall-firewalld (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
firewalld
libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit)
libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5DBus.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libkcm_firewall_core.so()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
plasma-firewall(x86-64)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
plasma-firewall-ufw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
dbus-common
libKF5AuthCore.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5ConfigCore.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5CoreAddons.so.5()(64bit)
libKF5I18n.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libkcm_firewall_core.so()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
plasma-firewall(x86-64)
polkit
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ufw
plasma-firewall-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
plasma-firewall-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
plasma-firewall:
libkcm_firewall_core.so()(64bit)
metainfo()
metainfo(org.kde.plasma.firewall.metainfo.xml)
plasma-firewall
plasma-firewall(x86-64)
plasma-firewall-firewalld:
plasma-firewall-backend
plasma-firewall-firewalld
plasma-firewall-firewalld(x86-64)
plasma-firewall-ufw:
plasma-firewall-backend
plasma-firewall-ufw
plasma-firewall-ufw(x86-64)
plasma-firewall-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
plasma-firewall-debuginfo
plasma-firewall-debuginfo(x86-64)
plasma-firewall-debugsource:
plasma-firewall-debugsource
plasma-firewall-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1921408 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Haskell, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml,
PHP
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
10:19 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Review notes:
* The install failure is expected, since two subpackages explicitly conflict
with each other. Otherwise it's fine.
* No desktop files are install to /usr/share/applications to validate, so this
is a false positive too
* License files are correctly installed and marked accordngly
Everything else looks good now, so...
PACKAGE APPROVED.
--
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
2:51 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
--- Comment #15 from Mohan Boddu <mboddu(a)bhujji.com> ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plasma-firewall
--
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
2:14 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1921408] Review Request: plasma-firewall - Control Panel for
your system firewall
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed| |2022-01-20 20:14:22
--- Comment #16 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com> ---
Package is in current Fedora release, closing ticket.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921408
863
days inactive
1221
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
17 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com