Hi!

Why FE-DEADREVIEW?? I'm here and want import package in Fedora. Do you willing review it?

I ready also swap reviews.

Update to version 0.19.0

Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/fafd7f402df63c3a7bf47026b3dffda3d7b4e950
Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/fafd7f402df63c3a7bf47026b3dffda3d7b4e950/SPECS/kdeneur.spec
Srpm: http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora25/kdeneur/kdeneur-0.19.0-1.fc26.src.rpm

Some recommendations:

1. Update to version 0.20.0.

2. Prefer github source:
Source0:       https://github.com/AndrewCrewKuznetsov/xneur-devel/blob/master/dists/%{version}/%{name}_%{version}.orig.tar.gz?raw=true

3. Pack versions with patch appliqued instead of you patch in your build.

4. Review your %build section to version 0.20.0

5. Use %autosetup instead of %setup -q

After run fedora-review tool:

[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0: https://launchpad.net/~andrew-crew-
     kuznetsov/+archive/xneur-stable/+files/kdeneur_0.19.0.orig.tar.gz
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags

[!]: %check is not present.

Full results in: https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kdeneur/review.txt

Hello Wolnei Junior. Thank you for the notes.
Ok.

Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/rpm-kdeneur/commit/32b59fe7df44bac8837eccef345a152da7c1d68a
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23086185
Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/rpm-kdeneur/32b59fe7df44bac8837eccef345a152da7c1d68a/kdeneur.spec
Srpm: http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora27/kdeneur/kdeneur-0.20.0-1.fc28.src.rpm

>Group: User Interface/Desktops
This should be dropped.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

>%doc COPYING
This should probably be marked as %license.

Ok thanks.

Changes: https://github.com/Hubbitus/rpm-kdeneur/commit/bca45a3d9e1fcf91e7cff34f59759a5370842962
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23163949
Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/rpm-kdeneur/bca45a3d9e1fcf91e7cff34f59759a5370842962/kdeneur.spec
Srpm: http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora27/kdeneur/kdeneur-0.20.0-2.fc28.src.rpm

Update for Fedora 30:

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37288739
Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/rpm-kdeneur/bca45a3d9e1fcf91e7cff34f59759a5370842962/kdeneur.spec
Srpm: http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora30/kdeneur/x86_64/kdeneur-0.20.0-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm

 - Not needed anymore:

%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :

%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
  touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null
  gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
fi

%posttrans
gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :

 - Add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories

 - Add gcc-c++ as a BR

 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install → %make_install

 - COPYING file specifies GPLv3 not v2+:

License:       GPLv3+

 - There's some obsolete m4 macros, you need to patch them out in %prep:

[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: kdeneur-0.20.0/configure.ac:10

You need to replace AC_PROG_LIBTOOL with LT_INIT
(https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/LT_005fINIT.html)


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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- gtk-update-icon-cache must not be invoked in %post and %posttrans for
  Fedora 26 and later.
  Note: icons in kdeneur
  See:


===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "FSF
     Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License", "*No copyright*
     GPL (v2)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public
     License (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 290 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/kdeneur/review-kdeneur/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.
[-]: 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 92160 bytes in 3 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 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 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in kdeneur
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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: kdeneur-0.20.0-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          kdeneur-debuginfo-0.20.0-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          kdeneur-debugsource-0.20.0-2.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          kdeneur-0.20.0-2.fc32.src.rpm
kdeneur.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
kdeneur.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found ru
kdeneur.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
kdeneur.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xneur -> neuron
kdeneur.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xneur -> neuron
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Still interested in packaging this?

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.