https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2401199
Benson Muite <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | --- Comment #11 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: [ ]: 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 2823 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/openboard/2401199- OpenBoard/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime, /usr/share/mime/packages [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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 3060 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. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 72038400 bytes in /usr/share OpenBoard-1.7.3-3.fc44.x86_64.rpm:72038400 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: OpenBoard-1.7.3-3.fc44.x86_64.rpm OpenBoard-1.7.3-3.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp7tj2b0jz')] checks: 32, packages: 2 OpenBoard.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openboard/OpenBoard.config OpenBoard.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openboard/OpenBoard.css OpenBoard.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/openboard/widgets.md5sum OpenBoard.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openboard OpenBoard.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/openboard/library/applications/GeoInfo.wgt/gpl-3.0.txt /usr/share/licenses/OpenBoard /LICENSE OpenBoard.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/openboard/library/applications/Calculator.wgt/legacy/js/vendor/jquery-1.3. 2.min.js /usr/share/openboard/library/applications/AnyEmbed.wgt/js/jquery-1.3.2.min.js . . . OpenBoard.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/openboard/startupHints/locales/it/css/style.css /usr/share/openboard/start upHints/locales/fr/css/style.css OpenBoard.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/share/openboard/startupHints/locales/it/css/style.css /usr/share/openboard/start upHints/locales/hr/css/style.css 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4927 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 4.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenBoard-org/OpenBoard/archive/v1.7.3/OpenBoard-1.7.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55532df042e3a5b36e1f6f1e29916d3bbd01796d920782fa1f8a03438dcddd9c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55532df042e3a5b36e1f6f1e29916d3bbd01796d920782fa1f8a03438dcddd9c Requires -------- OpenBoard (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Concurrent.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Concurrent.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.10)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Multimedia.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Multimedia.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6MultimediaWidgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6MultimediaWidgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6()(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Svg.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6SvgWidgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6WebChannel.so.6()(64bit) libQt6WebChannel.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6WebEngineCore.so.6()(64bit) libQt6WebEngineCore.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6WebEngineWidgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6WebEngineWidgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libavcodec.so.61()(64bit) libavcodec.so.61(LIBAVCODEC_61)(64bit) libavformat.so.61()(64bit) libavformat.so.61(LIBAVFORMAT_61)(64bit) libavutil.so.59()(64bit) libavutil.so.59(LIBAVUTIL_59)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpoppler.so.151()(64bit) libpoppler.so.151(POPPLER_151)(64bit) libquazip1-qt6.so.1.4.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libswresample.so.5()(64bit) libswresample.so.5(LIBSWRESAMPLE_5)(64bit) libswscale.so.8()(64bit) libswscale.so.8(LIBSWSCALE_8)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- OpenBoard: OpenBoard OpenBoard(x86-64) application() application(ch.openboard.OpenBoard.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(ch.openboard.OpenBoard.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(application/ubz) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/openboard/2401199-OpenBoard/srpm/OpenBoard.spec 2025-10-17 15:10:40.80101154 8 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/openboard/2401199-OpenBoard/srpm-unpacked/OpenBoard.spec 2025-10-13 03:00:00. 000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 3; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: OpenBoard Release: %autorelease @@ -124,3 +134,18 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Oct 13 2025 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[email protected]> - 1.7.3-3 +- drop Papier and iCell apps, they're under CC-BY-NC (non-free) + +* Sun Oct 12 2025 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[email protected]> - 1.7.3-2 +- review fixes +- correct SPDX license tag +- provide a break-down of source code licensing +- supply appstream data file +- process Qt translations with find_lang +- avoid shipping bundled fonts (either duplicate or not allowed license) +- use available system fonts + +* Fri Oct 10 2025 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[email protected]> - 1.7.3-1 +- initial build for Fedora +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2401199 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Java, R, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Merge request for appdata file: https://github.com/OpenBoard-org/OpenBoard/pull/1347 b) The OpenSuse package uses fdupes to minimize duplicate files: https://build.opensuse.org/projects/home:letsfindaway:experimental/packages/OpenBoard-Qt6/files/OpenBoard.spec Can something similar be done in Fedora? c) Bundled jquery is 1.6 and 1.7 Debian have a patch to use a packaged version: https://sources.debian.org/patches/openboard/1.7.3+dfsg-0.1/2008_use-Debian-js-libraries.patch/ but jquery in Fedora is 3.7, so maybe incompatible. Please indicate jquery is bundled in the spec file. d) Debian and OpenSuse also both have patches not to automatically update: https://sources.debian.org/patches/openboard/1.7.3+dfsg-0.1/2005_no-Check-Update.patch/ https://build.opensuse.org/projects/home:letsfindaway:experimental/packages/OpenBoard-Qt6/files/9117-disable-software-update.patch?expand=1 See https://github.com/OpenBoard-org/OpenBoard/blob/master/resources/etc/OpenBoard.config#L4 is something similar needed? e) Raised issue about font license files: https://github.com/OpenBoard-org/OpenBoard/issues/1348 f) /usr/share/mime and /usr/share/mime/packages are owned by shared-mime-info, should this be required or is this a false positive? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2401199 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202401199%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
