https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6487097

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas leamas.alec@gmail.com ---

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues: - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/al/tmp/FedoraReview/1060852-flnet/licensecheck.txt ---> They are all compatible, but a license break-down is required. The easiest is probably to use (GPLv2+ and GPLVv3 and LPGL2.1), but promoting some license(s) is an option. - According to licensecheck some files have wrong FSF address. Please file a bug or so upstream about this issue.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: %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 30720 bytes in 4 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 %doc. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [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: flnet-7.0.1-1.fc20.i686.rpm flnet-7.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm flnet.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flnet 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint flnet flnet.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flnet 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- flnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6 libc.so.6 libdl.so.2 libfltk.so.1.3 libfltk_images.so.1.3 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides -------- flnet: flnet flnet(x86-32)

Source checksums ---------------- http://www.w1hkj.com/downloads/flnet/flnet-7.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3a7cf3b0e6d589fee29282a2064ed516061af60606d3ad50c7b8de8fd1bf457d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3a7cf3b0e6d589fee29282a2064ed516061af60606d3ad50c7b8de8fd1bf457d

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (1921b30) last change: 2014-01-09 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1060852 Buildroot used: fedora-20-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Yeah, I'm still not really good with licenses... Assuming we uprev the lower GPL files, should we say"GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT"?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Whoops, no MIT in this one, I was in the wrong directory (fllog instead of flnet, that's a separate review!).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- I need to check if this one is affected but several of his projects bundle the library xmlrpcpp...

Well, kind of... Upstream is pretty much dead and he has altered it quite a bit to suit his purposes BUT he bundles is within several of his projects.

He doesn't really want to support as a separate library, which I understand so I've been working on him to see what we can do but haven't found a suitable solution.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #11 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #6)

Nor am I, and I might have given wrong (well, incomplete ;) ) info on this earlier. If you choose to promote, you also need to patch the sources [1]. Although not that complicated in this case, it might be easier just to expand the license tag.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade

Ok, I've had lots of other things going on but am now getting back to reviews.

After reading the link this seems to be for actually "upgrading" your whole project, not just allowing for promotion. I don't think any of the source files need to be physically altered as long as they are of the "or any later version" variety.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #13 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Do you still see the licensing as a blocker?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #15 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.2.5-1.fc23.src.rpm

* Wed Dec 2 2015 Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com - 7.2.5-1 - Update to latest upstream release.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #17 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

* Fri Oct 28 2016 Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com - 7.3.1-1 - Update to latest upstream release.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #18 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet.spec SRPM: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flnet-7.3.2-1.fc26.src.rpm

* Wed Nov 01 2017 Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com - 7.3.2-1 - Update to latest upstream release. - Add appdata file.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #19 from mgansser@alice.de mgansser@online.de --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

this seems to be a bug in fedora-review. It is correct to list gcc-c++ as a BR, per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Req...

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/metainfo

please add %dir %{_datadir}/metainfo to file section

- please use %{name} macro instead of flnet. - please inform upstream about flnet.appdata.xml file

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/flnet/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/metainfo [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. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in flnet- debuginfo [?]: 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. [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.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: flnet-7.3.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm flnet-debuginfo-7.3.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm flnet-7.3.2-1.fc28.src.rpm flnet.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib flnet.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flnet flnet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/fldigi/flnet-7.3.2.tar.gz <urlopen error _ssl.c:732: The handshake operation timed out> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: flnet-debuginfo-7.3.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory flnet.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.w1hkj.com/Net-help/index.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flnet.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib flnet.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flnet flnet-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.w1hkj.com/Net-help/index.html <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Requires -------- flnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfltk.so.1.3()(64bit) libfltk_images.so.1.3()(64bit) libflxmlrpc.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

flnet-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- flnet: application() application(flnet.desktop) flnet flnet(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(flnet.appdata.xml)

flnet-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) flnet-debuginfo flnet-debuginfo(x86-64)

Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/fldigi/flnet-7.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb51111795d2a1ddad55b6d898deaa7ae113794a80c5f7430f69904a31ec3967 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb51111795d2a1ddad55b6d898deaa7ae113794a80c5f7430f69904a31ec3967

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -rn ../SRPMS/flnet-7.3.2-1.fc26.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #21 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #20)

(In reply to mgansser@alice.de from comment #19)

...

Issues:

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/metainfo

please add %dir %{_datadir}/metainfo to file section

I'll take a look at this... I don't think packages providing an appdata file should own that directory but nothing else seems to...

Ok, per Kalev on the devel list the filesystem package owns /usr/lib/metainfo in F27+ and packages simply providing appdata files should not own it.

Do you consider the other ones blockers?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #23 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review! Repository has been requested.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |ON_QA

--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flcluster-1.0.3-1.fc27, flnet-7.3.2-1.fc27, flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc27, linsim-2.0.3-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1f38cce05e

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flcluster-1.0.3-1.fc26, flnet-7.3.2-1.fc26, flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc26, linsim-2.0.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c3bdb834df

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060852

--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flcluster-1.0.3-1.fc26, flnet-7.3.2-1.fc26, flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc26, linsim-2.0.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.