https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
Bug ID: 1321081 Summary: Review Request: flwkey - Modem program for the K1EL Winkeyer series Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hobbes1069@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//flwkey.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//flwkey-1.2.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Flwkey is a Winkeyer (or clone) control program for Amateur Radio use. It may be used concurrently with fldigi, fllog and flrig.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13448342
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
Kevin Alon Goldblatt kgoldbla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1399688
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399688 [Bug 1399688] Snapshot delete on HSM fails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
Raz Tamir ratamir@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|1399688 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399688 [Bug 1399688] Snapshot delete on HSM fails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flwkey.spec SRPM URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc26.src.rpm
* Wed Nov 01 2017 Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com - 1.2.3-2 - Add appdata file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@email.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mattia.verga@email.it Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mattia.verga@email.it Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@email.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |hobbes1069@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(hobbes1069@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@email.it --- 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
- License in spec file is "GPLv3+ and MIT", but some sources are licensed GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+, so the license should be "GPLv2+ and MIT". Also the COPYING file distributed with the program is GPLv2. The dual license should be explained briefly or with a breakdown.
- Please add a note to clarify that Source99 is a file added by you (and specify its license - I think you want to release as MIT)
===== 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. [!]: 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", "*No copyright* CC by", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)". 85 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/1321081-flwkey/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 10240 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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. [?]: 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]: 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: flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm flwkey-debuginfo-1.2.3-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm flwkey-debugsource-1.2.3-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm flwkey-1.2.3-2.fc28.src.rpm flwkey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fldigi -> digital flwkey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fllog -> flog, fl log, fl-log flwkey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flrig -> frig, fl rig, fl-rig flwkey.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib flwkey.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flwkey flwkey-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation flwkey.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fldigi -> digital flwkey.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fllog -> flog, fl log, fl-log flwkey.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flrig -> frig, fl rig, fl-rig 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: flwkey-debuginfo-1.2.3-2.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 flwkey-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.w1hkj.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flwkey-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.w1hkj.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flwkey-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation flwkey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fldigi -> digital flwkey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fllog -> flog, fl log, fl-log flwkey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flrig -> frig, fl rig, fl-rig flwkey.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.w1hkj.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flwkey.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib flwkey.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flwkey 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Requires -------- flwkey-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
flwkey-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
flwkey (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_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xdg-utils
Provides -------- flwkey-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) flwkey-debuginfo flwkey-debuginfo(x86-64)
flwkey-debugsource: flwkey-debugsource flwkey-debugsource(x86-64)
flwkey: application() application(flwkey.desktop) flwkey flwkey(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(flwkey.appdata.xml)
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.w1hkj.com/files/flwkey/flwkey-1.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7431ca23078cb13ddf566c45f79bf2b8544f2df7699f05d884829992686026bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7431ca23078cb13ddf566c45f79bf2b8544f2df7699f05d884829992686026bf
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1321081 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=1321081
Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(hobbes1069@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #3)
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
Yeah, I followed the same link and it's useless, you have to scroll up to Build Requirements which states that the standard build root can change over time and you can only assume that there's enough there for rpm/rpmbuild to function. It doesn't hurt anything.
- License in spec file is "GPLv3+ and MIT", but some sources are licensed GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+, so the license should be "GPLv2+ and MIT". Also the COPYING file distributed with the program is GPLv2. The dual license should be explained briefly or with a breakdown.
GPLv3 sources can't be downgraded to GPLv2 so I believe my original entry is correct.
- Please add a note to clarify that Source99 is a file added by you (and specify its license - I think you want to release as MIT)
I haven't worried about this in the past as the appdata file itself specifies it's license to be CC0-1.0 (same as the example in the Fedora wiki.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@email.it --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #4)
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #3)
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
Yeah, I followed the same link and it's useless, you have to scroll up to Build Requirements which states that the standard build root can change over time and you can only assume that there's enough there for rpm/rpmbuild to function. It doesn't hurt anything.
Yep, it may be a fedora-review glitch, I cannot finda anything in Guidelines about that. Instead I found a page that says the opposite: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
- License in spec file is "GPLv3+ and MIT", but some sources are licensed GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+, so the license should be "GPLv2+ and MIT". Also the COPYING file distributed with the program is GPLv2. The dual license should be explained briefly or with a breakdown.
GPLv3 sources can't be downgraded to GPLv2 so I believe my original entry is correct.
You may be right, but the license file bundled in sources is a GPLv2+ license... I've asked help on the legal mailing list on how to proceed if the bundled license file is wrong.
- Please add a note to clarify that Source99 is a file added by you (and specify its license - I think you want to release as MIT)
I haven't worried about this in the past as the appdata file itself specifies it's license to be CC0-1.0 (same as the example in the Fedora wiki.
We should document where the sources come from, it should be a best practice to add a comment about that. But it's not mandatory.
Let's wait the legal mailing list response about the license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #5)
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #4)
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #3)
- License in spec file is "GPLv3+ and MIT", but some sources are licensed GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+, so the license should be "GPLv2+ and MIT". Also the COPYING file distributed with the program is GPLv2. The dual license should be explained briefly or with a breakdown.
GPLv3 sources can't be downgraded to GPLv2 so I believe my original entry is correct.
You may be right, but the license file bundled in sources is a GPLv2+ license... I've asked help on the legal mailing list on how to proceed if the bundled license file is wrong.
The "+" specifically means "... or later version". Licensing can get quite complicated but in the case of mixed GPL licenses it's much simpler. All the LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ sources are upgraded to GPLv3 in the resultant binary. If the LGPLv2+ files ended up in a separate library then we would need to list both.
- Please add a note to clarify that Source99 is a file added by you (and specify its license - I think you want to release as MIT)
I haven't worried about this in the past as the appdata file itself specifies it's license to be CC0-1.0 (same as the example in the Fedora wiki.
We should document where the sources come from, it should be a best practice to add a comment about that. But it's not mandatory.
Let's wait the legal mailing list response about the license.
If you examine the file I have copyrighted it and attributed an acceptable licence to the metadata. While it's not specifically referenced in the spec file I believe the requirements have been met.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@email.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@email.it --- Ok, you're right... package ACCEPTED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #8 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Repo and branches requested. Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flwkey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 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=1321081
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flcluster-1.0.3-1.el7, flnet-7.3.2-1.el7, flwkey-1.2.3-2.el7, linsim-2.0.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2017-5ff6d0e947
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #12 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=1321081
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-11-17 22:44:28
--- Comment #13 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 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #14 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- flcluster-1.0.3-1.el7, flnet-7.3.2-1.el7, flwkey-1.2.3-2.el7, linsim-2.0.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla