[Bug 2242665] New: Review Request: kf6-kjobwidgets - KDE Frameworks 6 Tier 2 addon for KJobs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
Bug ID: 2242665 Summary: Review Request: kf6-kjobwidgets - KDE Frameworks 6 Tier 2 addon for KJobs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: farchord@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kf6-kjobwidgets/kf6-kjobwidgets.sp... SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kf6-kjobwidgets/kf6-kjobwidgets-5....
Description: KDE Frameworks 6 Tier 2 addon for KJobs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kf6-kjobwidgets/kf6-kjobwidgets.sp... SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kf6-kjobwidgets/kf6-kjobwidgets-5.... Description: KDE Frameworks 6 Tier 2 addon for KJobs. Fedora Account System Username: farchord
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8f49b79027 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8f49b79027
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
--- Comment #2 from Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com --- Package review: some corrections required.
1. License: add missing licenses (ref. https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kjobwidgets/-/tree/master/LICENSES?ref_typ...) 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/e058145a9f85f34e51c8... : 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
--- Comment #3 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- 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.
- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
--- Comment #4 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Oh and btw I did also note in the spec the licenses that are unused. We can add them if they decide to use it again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
--- Comment #5 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kf6-kjobwidgets/kf6-kjobwidgets.sp... SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/kf6-kjobwidgets/kf6-kjobwidgets-5....
Change the Requires spacing in the spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://invent.kde.org/fram | |eworks/%{framework}
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6506021 (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=2242665
Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com --- Thank you for the clarifications! Just wonder if we may need 'Requires: systemd' as %{_kf6_datadir}/dbus-1/interfaces/ is owned by systemd.
Package approved.
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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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]: 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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
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/tmpux5mwzgd')] 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 0.3 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/tmpye9u32ax')] checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "kf6-kjobwidgets". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "kf6-kjobwidgets-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "kf6-kjobwidgets-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "kf6-kjobwidgets-debugsource". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kjobwidgets/-/archive/e058145a9f85f34e51c8... : 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 --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name kf6-kjobwidgets --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, fonts, Haskell, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
--- Comment #8 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- I checked the kf5 variant and it doesn't have it so we should be fine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
--- Comment #9 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review, Rajeesh
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/56864
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
--- 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/kf6-kjobwidgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-10-08 13:05:42
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-8f49b79027 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-8f49b79027` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8f49b79027
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2235556 (kf6-reviews) CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235556 [Bug 2235556] KF6-related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-ee5ec1e373 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com