https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) --- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- *** Bug 1117223 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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=1830712 --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Please use a link to raw spec file to properly get it downloadable. E.g. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.... Please start with value 1, also in %changelog. -- 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=1830712 Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(projects.rg@smart | |.ms) --- Comment #4 from Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Updated according the comments above: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/f... Kronometer is a stopwatch application. Kronometer is free software and it's released under the GPLv2 license. Fedora Account System Username: andreamtp I was looking for a stopwatch for KDE and found kronometer was missing in Fedora, so I've packaged. I've already done some packaging for persona use, but this is my rpm for Fedora. COPR builds of the packages: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andreamtp/kronometer/ -- 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=1830712 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; --- At a first glance, the specfile looks reasonable to me. Just please also write your name in the changelog and not only the e-mail address. I have sponsored Andrea. Benvenuto! (Welcome!) Please read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers carefully and follow the process. I am fluent in Italian (it's the language of my citizenship after all), so if you have any questions you have to ask me, feel free to ask them in Italian if it is easier for you. (Though I guess that as a Red Hat employee, you are probably also used to communicating in English.) Raphael, can you complete the formal review? (You can approve the package now that the contributor is sponsored.) -- 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=1830712 --- Comment #8 from Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #6) Updated according the comments above: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/f... Kronometer is a stopwatch application. Kronometer is free software and it's released under the GPLv2 license. Fedora Account System Username: andreamtp I was looking for a stopwatch for KDE and found kronometer was missing in Fedora, so I've packaged. I've already done some packaging for persona use, but this is my rpm for Fedora. COPR builds of the packages: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andreamtp/kronometer/ Thank you very much for the sponsorship and for the welcome! -- 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=1830712 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; --- E.g., what my pedantic eyes catch is the inconsistent alignment here: BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils BuildRequires: libappstream-glib BuildRequires: extra-cmake-modules BuildRequires: cmake(Qt5Core) >= 5.9.0 … (The first 2 BuildRequires have 1 space after the colon, all the others have 2 spaces.) That is not something I would fail a review for (because the users of the package won't even notice), but if I were the maintainer of the package, I would have the instant urge to fix this. :-) -- 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=1830712 --- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Well, I thought you intent me to do so. Please feel free to approve. -- 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=1830712 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=1830712 Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #15 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; --- I'll take the review then, I hope I'll get it done soon. If I take too long, please remind me. :-) -- 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

Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; has canceled Package Review <package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;&#39;s request for Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt;&#39;s needinfo: Bug 1830712: Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 --- Comment #17 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; --- I am still interested in doing the review, if the submitter is still interested too. I hope to find time this weekend.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 --- Comment #18 from Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #17) Yes please, would be really appreciated. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.... # dnf copr enable andreamtp/kronometer <or> SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedo... In COPR can be found repos and builds for F33, F34, F35 and Rawhide Looking for your feedback! -- 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=1830712 --- Comment #20 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; --- fedora-review output: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kkofler/kronometer-rev... I still need to go through the manually-checked items, but one thing fedora-review complains about is that you do not have a BuildRequires: gcc-c++ (but are instead implicitly relying on Qt/KDE -devel packages dragging it in transitively). I think adding an explicit BuildRequires: gcc-c++ would be a good idea. -- 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=1830712 Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(kevin(a)tigcc.tical | |c.org) | Status|ASSIGNED |NEW --- Comment #22 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; --- Seeing how I have somehow managed to let this sit for a whole year again, I guess resetting the flags is the honest thing to do, and I am doing that hereby, sorry. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Carl George 🤠 <carl(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(aperotti(a)redhat.c | |om) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(aperotti(a)redhat.c | |om) | |needinfo?(carl(a)redhat.com) --- Comment #25 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Is there still interest in this review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(aperotti(a)redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #27 from Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi, quick update: life took over me, but I'm back on it and plan in next weeks to rework rpm, with Carl suggestions, and have a new one to be reviewed before publishing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 --- Comment #29 from Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; --- SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/f... -- 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=1830712

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(carl(a)redhat.com) --- Comment #31 from Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #30) Ah, thanks! I've addressed it None, you're right. I've updated it. I've also understood the origin of the problem with the gui tests, and I've opened an upstream bug: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469342 In the meantime it's disabled. SPEC and SRPMS have been updated: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/f... -- 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=1830712

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Carl George 🤠 <carl(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(carl(a)redhat.com) | Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #33 from Carl George 🤠 <carl(a)redhat.com&gt; --- The package is looking good, so I'm going to go ahead and approve it. I would recommend a couple of more slight tweaks, but they're not bad enough to block the package and you can take care of them later. ================================================================================ fedora-review points out that if "the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec". This used to be part of the packaging guidelines, but seems to have been accidentally dropped during the SPDX overhaul. It would still be good to have this. I suggest a simple comment above the license line. +# code is GPLv2, appdata file is CC0 License: GPL-2.0-or-later AND CC0-1.0 ================================================================================ From rpmlint: kronometer.x86_64: W: gzipped-svg-icon /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/kronometer.svgz Not all desktop environments that support SVG icons support them gzipped (.svgz). Install the icon as plain uncompressed SVG. It looks like upstream is using the svgz format. To clear the rpmlint warning you can probably just run gunzip on that file at the end of %install. ================================================================================ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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]: %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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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. [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: Documentation size is 184320 bytes in 20 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]: 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 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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. -- 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=1830712

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Andrea Perotti <aperotti(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-06-23 20:49:48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e8d16405cf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...