https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687217 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- - Simplify the Source0: Source0: https://github.com/tsl0922/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.... - The LICENSE file must be included with %license not %doc - Split the description to stay under 80 characters per line: ttyd.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ttyd is a simple command-line tool for sharing terminal over the web, inspired by GoTTY. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Apache License (v2.0)", "GNU General Public License (v2)". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ttyd/review-ttyd/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. [-]: 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. [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 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: [-]: 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 ttyd , ttyd-debuginfo , ttyd-debugsource [?]: 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]: 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: ttyd-1.4.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ttyd-debuginfo-1.4.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ttyd-debugsource-1.4.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ttyd-1.4.2-1.fc31.src.rpm ttyd.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ttyd is a simple command-line tool for sharing terminal over the web, inspired by GoTTY. ttyd.src: E: description-line-too-long C ttyd is a simple command-line tool for sharing terminal over the web, inspired by GoTTY. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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=1687217 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; --- This is very interesting; ttyd looks like it could be a reasonable replacement for shellinabox (which has kind of gone unmaintained for a while). However it seems to me that the packaging is a bit barebones for something that I'd expect to provide a daemon. Shouldn't it at least provide a systemd unit, or was your intent not to do so? If the latter, how do you envision this package being used? I haven't gone through the entire build process but I'm curious about what happens to the bundled javascript bits. I guess it all ends up crammed into the pre-bompiled index.html and that gets compiled into the binary. But I'm not sure if that code is xterm.js, is derived from xterm.js or is something else; if it's bundled, that needs to be indicated here with Provides: bundled(xterm.js) = 3.2.0 or whatever the version is. And it appears to be pre-minimized, which causes its own issues about that needing to be built from source. Frankly I don't know much about webpack or how this even gets built, but I'm not sure that what's in the ttyd source tarball is all that's actually needed to completely rebuild everything from source. Another thing would be an selinux policy, but that's not at all required. I managed to get one working for shellinabox but it has a somewhat different scope. -- 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=1687217 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; --- Erm, surely at least the bundling issue deserves a mention. -- 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=1687217 --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7) The bundle seems to contain: "dependencies": { "bulma": "^0.6.1", "core-js": "^2.5.3", "fast-text-encoding": "^1.0.0", "xterm": "^3.12.0", "zmodem.js": "^0.1.7" }, -- 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=1687217 --- Comment #10 from Fernando Pereira dos Santos <ferox(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) What you mean to simplify? I'm following the official guide, using the %version macro: "Using %{version} in the SourceX: makes it easier for you to bump the version of a package, because most of the time you do not need to edit SourceX: when editing the spec file for the new package." There is a lot of spec's samples around the web using Github url. -- 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=1687217 Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br --- Comment #12 from Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #11) I would like to take over and finish this one packaging ttyd , sounds good to you ? will you review it ? -- 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=1687217 Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2020-05-09 04:37:44 --- Comment #14 from Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br&gt; --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1833612 *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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