[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-10 17:54:28 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plasma-thunderbolt -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683
Brendan Early changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Early ---
> - Libraries do not follow naming conventions. I think the ones under
> qt5/plugins are fine, but I don't think that libkbolt is ok.
> See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
> - libkbolt should be a subpackage
> See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_mixed_use_packages
>
> → Won't fix, libkbolt is a QML plugin, it's not meant to be used outside
> plasma-thunderbolt.
Sorry, I didn't notice the "this is not needed" exception for plugins in the
guidelines. I tried to find other kcm plugins putting libraries under /usr/lib.
I was only able to find kde-connect, which does version it's lib.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kde-connect/blob/master/f/kde-connect.spec#_161
> - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
> file-validate if there is such a file.
> → Won't fix, it's a service file for a KCM module, not for an application, it
> won't pass the validation
metadata.desktop passes validation with desktop-file-validate perfectly fine on
my system.
Approved. None of these blockers, but I still encourage you to ask upstream to
version the lib.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jgrulich@redhat.c | |om) | -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683 --- Comment #4 from Jan Grulich --- Spec URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/plasma-thunderbolt/plasma-thunderbolt.spec SRPM URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/plasma-thunderbolt/plasma-thunderbolt-5.18.2-1.fc32.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683
--- Comment #3 from Jan Grulich ---
- Fix compiler flags. You might want to use %make_build and %make_install
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
→ Fixed
- There are license issues. One of the files has a different license, I have
attached a report.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/
→ Fixed
- Libraries do not follow naming conventions. I think the ones under
qt5/plugins are fine, but I don't think that libkbolt is ok.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
- libkbolt should be a subpackage
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_mixed_use_packages
→ Won't fix, libkbolt is a QML plugin, it's not meant to be used outside
plasma-thunderbolt.
- Consider adding readme to %doc
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
→ Fixed
- 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++/
→ Fixed
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
→ Won't fix, it's a service file for a KCM module, not for an application, it
won't pass the validation
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/kpackage/kcms/kcm_bolt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
→ Fixed
--
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683
Brendan Early changed:
What|Removed |Added
Environment||If this bug requires
||documentation, please
||select an appropriate Doc
||Type value.
Flags||needinfo?(jgrulich@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #1 from Brendan Early ---
This should be everything.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Fix compiler flags. You might want to use %make_build and %make_install
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
- There are license issues. One of the files has a different license, I have
attached a report.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/
- Libraries do not follow naming conventions. I think the ones under
qt5/plugins are fine, but I don't think that libkbolt is ok.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
- libkbolt should be a subpackage
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_mixed_use_packages
- Consider adding readme to %doc
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
- 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++/
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/kpackage/kcms/kcm_bolt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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:
[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. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "GNU General Public License (v2)". 82 files have unknown
license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kcms,
/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/kded
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Note: Use %{optflags}
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Note: See issues section
[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]: 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}
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683 Brendan Early changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mymindst...@evermiss.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mymindst...@evermiss.net Flags||fedora-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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||plasma-thunderbolt -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
