https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 Ian McInerney <ian.s.mcinerney(a)ieee.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ian.s.mcinerney(a)ieee.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |ian.s.mcinerney(a)ieee.org --- Comment #1 from Ian McInerney <ian.s.mcinerney(a)ieee.org&gt; --- I'll review this over the weekend. At first glance at the specfile though, it appears you are globbing the soversion of the library. I would suggest not globbing the soversion and instead adding a global variable to contain it. That way it is obvious when there is an soversion bump and dependent packages need to be rebuilt. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries. -- 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=2095717

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 Ian McInerney <ian.s.mcinerney(a)ieee.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #3 from Ian McInerney <ian.s.mcinerney(a)ieee.org&gt; --- Issues: - Must include the perl executable (e.g. BuildRequires: perl-interpreter) as a build dependency because the test script uses perl - Replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} - Don't glob the .so file in the main files section (instead hardcode the soname information) - %{?ldconfig_scriptlets} is not needed unless building on EPEL7 - Include the LICENSE_LGPL file in the installation (the COPYING file says the user should receive a copy of the LPGL, which is in this file) - The Fedora shortname for the License field here would be LGPLv2+ instead of LGPL-2.1+ (as shown here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses). I am also blocking on a legal query because this package appears to place a restriction on the LGPL about derivative works (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.o...) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [!]: 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Unknown or generated", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/imcinerney/dev/fedora/reviews/sfsexp/2095717-sfsexp/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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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. [!]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sfsexp- devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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://github.com/mjsottile/sfsexp/releases/download/v1.4.0/sfsexp-1.4.0... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 66b3d3a83b781613e04372fa0185518ed00fe1435de116be88cf0fdd3e4c0286 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66b3d3a83b781613e04372fa0185518ed00fe1435de116be88cf0fdd3e4c0286 Requires -------- sfsexp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sfsexp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsexp.so.1()(64bit) sfsexp(x86-64) sfsexp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sfsexp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sfsexp: libsexp.so.1()(64bit) sfsexp sfsexp(x86-64) sfsexp-devel: pkgconfig(sfsexp) sfsexp-devel sfsexp-devel(x86-64) sfsexp-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsexp.so.1.0.0-1.4.0-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit) sfsexp-debuginfo sfsexp-debuginfo(x86-64) sfsexp-debugsource: sfsexp-debugsource sfsexp-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2095717 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, fonts, Java, Python, R, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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=2095717

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 --- Comment #5 from Ian McInerney <ian.s.mcinerney(a)ieee.org&gt; --- Legal has determined this package is just the LGPLv2+ (the additional language is apparently less strict than the language of the LGPL, so the LGPL would take precedence anyway), so that is the license identifier to use. Yes, you can just ship the LICENSE_LGPL as a new source: line and do the install that way, and you should probably leave a comment/link to the upstream PR noting that it can be removed after the next version is released and the in-tree version could be used. Please update it into a -2 spec and post it again. I think it will be good to go after that one. -- 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=2095717

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 --- Comment #7 from Michael J Gruber <mjg(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- re FE-legal: am I entitled to un-block, or should someone else do this? -- 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=2095717

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 --- Comment #9 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org&gt; --- Thanks for your patience. Sorry missed some of the other points that were raised. Useful learning experience. -- 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=2095717

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 --- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sfsexp -- 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=2095717

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-57dfeeb304 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-57dfeeb304 -- 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=2095717

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-57dfeeb304 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-57dfeeb304 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=2095717

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-57dfeeb304 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 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=2095717