https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca <davide(a)cavalca.name&gt; --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108280369 -- 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |POST CC| |pemensik(a)redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "FSF All Permissive License", "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2246851-gencolormap/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps [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. [x]: 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 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 1605 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gencolormap-2.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm gencolormap-debuginfo-2.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm gencolormap-debugsource-2.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm gencolormap-2.3-1.fc41.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpl79hir0n')] checks: 31, packages: 4 gencolormap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gencolormap gencolormap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gencolormap-gui ============================================================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gencolormap-debuginfo-2.3-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp1_wcd9ur')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 checks: 32, packages: 3 gencolormap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gencolormap gencolormap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gencolormap-gui 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://marlam.de/key.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e3a0863dd448b928c5acba130974a16c1aff9a396a1b9e9cca067a198265f5e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e3a0863dd448b928c5acba130974a16c1aff9a396a1b9e9cca067a198265f5e https://marlam.de/gencolormap/releases/gencolormap-2.3.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7522b5ad750eb8eb427155d4b2cd0b9a6113d2debb87d742c3435b7ea9428442 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7522b5ad750eb8eb427155d4b2cd0b9a6113d2debb87d742c3435b7ea9428442 https://marlam.de/gencolormap/releases/gencolormap-2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7eb2c34b407056b8719e665114043a3a4be199a5fc1628b1cb853ef8cae81384 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7eb2c34b407056b8719e665114043a3a4be199a5fc1628b1cb853ef8cae81384 Requires -------- gencolormap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.7)(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_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gencolormap-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gencolormap-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gencolormap: application() application(de.marlam.gencolormap.desktop) gencolormap gencolormap(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(de.marlam.gencolormap.metainfo.xml) gencolormap-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gencolormap-debuginfo gencolormap-debuginfo(x86-64) gencolormap-debugsource: gencolormap-debugsource gencolormap-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2246851 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 Davide Cavalca <davide(a)cavalca.name&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pemensik(a)redhat.c | |om) | |needinfo?(pemensik(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca <davide(a)cavalca.name&gt; --- Thanks @pemensik(a)redhat.com but I think you forgot to update the review flag, as this still shows as not approved so I cannot import it. -- 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions <fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gencolormap -- 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-05-13 04:04:08 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-06c8ba5904 (gencolormap-2.3-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-2e6e51924d (gencolormap-2.3-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2e6e51924d -- 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-2e6e51924d has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-2e6e51924d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2e6e51924d 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-6a5726da43 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-2024-6a5726da43 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6a5726da43 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246851 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-0e973a0382 (gencolormap-2.3-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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=2246851 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...