https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) --- Comment #1 from Artem <ego.cordatus(a)gmail.com&gt; --- *** Bug 1835958 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor 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 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=2049772

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 Yaroslav Sidlovsky <zawertun(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Yaroslav Sidlovsky <zawertun(a)gmail.com&gt; --- All in all spec looks good expect this: 1. I think it will be better to change License tag to "GPLv2 and GPLv3+" to reflect bundled libs licenses; 2. %post script reloading udev rules is not needed, rules would be reloaded automatically (see: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...) 3. LICENSE file should belong to main package -- 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=2049772

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 --- Comment #4 from Yaroslav Sidlovsky <zawertun(a)gmail.com&gt; --- One more little thing - I think it will be better to reset package release to 1. -- 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=2049772

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 Yaroslav Sidlovsky <zawertun(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Yaroslav Sidlovsky <zawertun(a)gmail.com&gt; --- 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]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0". 930 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zawertun/2049772-openrgb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openrgb- udev-rules [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/CalcProgrammer1/OpenRGB/-/archive/release_0.7/OpenRGB-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6052e04ad736f94a91a386f6cfc0aaff9554fafdabe99cdd46a296fd49132569 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6052e04ad736f94a91a386f6cfc0aaff9554fafdabe99cdd46a296fd49132569 Requires -------- openrgb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhidapi-hidraw.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmbedcrypto.so.7()(64bit) libmbedtls.so.14()(64bit) libmbedx509.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) openrgb-udev-rules rtld(GNU_HASH) openrgb-udev-rules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): systemd-udev openrgb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openrgb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- openrgb: application() application(OpenRGB.desktop) bundled(hueplusplus) bundled(libcmmk) metainfo() metainfo(org.openrgb.OpenRGB.metainfo.xml) openrgb openrgb(x86-64) openrgb-udev-rules: openrgb-udev-rules openrgb-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) openrgb-debuginfo openrgb-debuginfo(x86-64) openrgb-debugsource: openrgb-debugsource openrgb-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2049772 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, fonts, R, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2049772

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17 -- 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=2049772

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a -- 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=2049772

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3b1634fa0a 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 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=2049772

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-04-28 05:51:44 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-f10e2bee3f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2049772

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049772 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-4893b5ab17 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2049772