*** Bug 1360277 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

 - License should contain GNU Free Documentation License too

 - Add  a BR for gcc-c++

 


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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B


===== 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: "Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)",
     "Unknown or generated", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GNU Free
     Documentation License (v1.3)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL
     (v3)", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)". 915 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/qt-installer-
     framework/review-qt-installer-framework/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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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 qt-
     installer-framework-doc , qt-installer-framework-debuginfo , qt-
     installer-framework-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[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: 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: qt-installer-framework-3.0.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          qt-installer-framework-doc-3.0.6-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          qt-installer-framework-examples-3.0.6-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
          qt-installer-framework-debuginfo-3.0.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          qt-installer-framework-debugsource-3.0.6-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          qt-installer-framework-3.0.6-1.fc30.src.rpm
qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/qt-installer-framework/Changelog
qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/qt-installer-framework/README
qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary archivegen-qt5
qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binarycreator-qt5
qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary devtool-qt5
qt-installer-framework.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repogen-qt5
qt-installer-framework-examples.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
qt-installer-framework-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation
qt-installer-framework-examples.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/qt5/examples/ifw/registervirtualcomponentforuninstall/packages/component/data/selectedcomponent
qt-installer-framework-examples.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/qt5/examples/ifw/registervirtualcomponentforuninstall/packages/org.qtproject.ifw.example.registercomponent/data/registercomponent
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings.

Thank you. I fixed.

https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/fd20f55aa39fa0a707ec34a2443be693197e672d

Package approved.

Review stalled