https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322294

Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated

--- Comment #0 has been edited ---

Spec URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/crystal-dock/crystal-dock.spec SRPM URL: https://farchord.fedorapeople.org/reviews/crystal-dock/crystal-dock-2.7.0-1....

Description: Crystal Dock is a cool dock (desktop panel) for Linux desktop, with the focus on attractive user interface, being simple and easy to customize, and cross-desktop support.

Fedora Account System Username: farchord

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322294

--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8184731 (succeeded)

Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Found issues:

- Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages

Please know that there can be false-positives.

--- 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=2322294

--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8184732 (succeeded)

Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Found issues:

- Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages

Please know that there can be false-positives.

--- 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=2322294

Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Link ID| |Github | |dangvd/crystal-dock/issues/ | |92

--- Comment #5 from Steve Cossette farchord@gmail.com --- FYI I am aware of the issue where the library is unversioned. I have an issue upstream for it (https://github.com/dangvd/crystal-dock/issues/92) but I seem to be having a hard time expressing myself, if anyone's willing to chime in :)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322294

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2054289 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2054289&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8184732 to 8187913

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322294

--- Comment #9 from danfrantes@seznam.cz ---

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text

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: [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. [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. [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. [x]: 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 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]: 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 2845 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: crystal-dock-2.7.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm crystal-dock-2.7.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpywitstgp')] checks: 32, packages: 2

crystal-dock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary crystal-dock 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dangvd/crystal-dock/archive/refs/tags/v2.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd9f752472ce1d9b82cc0d8dde8aa7369c8b07b0aab82ff4602cfdfe9b6cbcbd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd9f752472ce1d9b82cc0d8dde8aa7369c8b07b0aab82ff4602cfdfe9b6cbcbd

Requires -------- crystal-dock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libLayerShellQtInterface.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.8)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides -------- crystal-dock: application() application(crystal-dock.desktop) crystal-dock crystal-dock(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2322294 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, Java, R, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH