https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662532

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - License should contain GNU Free Documentation License too

- Add a BR for gcc-c++

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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B

===== 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: "Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.3)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL (v3)", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)". 915 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/qt-installer- framework/review-qt-installer-framework/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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qt- installer-framework-doc , qt-installer-framework-debuginfo , qt- installer-framework-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: qt-installer-framework-3.0.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm qt-installer-framework-doc-3.0.6-1.fc30.noarch.rpm qt-installer-framework-examples-3.0.6-1.fc30.noarch.rpm qt-installer-framework-debuginfo-3.0.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm qt-installer-framework-debugsource-3.0.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm qt-installer-framework-3.0.6-1.fc30.src.rpm qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/qt-installer-framework/Changelog qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/qt-installer-framework/README qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary archivegen-qt5 qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binarycreator-qt5 qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary devtool-qt5 qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repogen-qt5 qt-installer-framework-examples.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib qt-installer-framework-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation qt-installer-framework-examples.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/qt5/examples/ifw/registervirtualcomponentforuninstall/packages/component/data/selectedcomponent qt-installer-framework-examples.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/qt5/examples/ifw/registervirtualcomponentforuninstall/packages/org.qtproject.ifw.example.registercomponent/data/registercomponent 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662532

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.