https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |i@cicku.me Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |i@cicku.me Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de

--- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- This is a violation of the FHS and not allowed in Fedora: %{_var}/ax25

It should likely be /var/lib/ax25 or /var/cache/ax25, depending on what kind of files this directory is supposed to take.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

Jan Synacek jsynacek@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jsynacek@redhat.com

--- Comment #3 from Jan Synacek jsynacek@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

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

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

C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/uronode/1120771-uronode/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ax25 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 112640 bytes in 9 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: ftp://ftp.n1uro.net/packet/uronode-2.1.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: uronode-2.1-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm uronode-2.1-2.fc20.src.rpm uronode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US digipeating -> digitizing uronode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flexnet -> flex net, flex-net, fleetness uronode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours uronode.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ax25/uronode.users 0600L uronode.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ax25/uronode.perms 0600L uronode.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/uronode/LICENSE uronode.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/uronode uronode.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flexd uronode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US digipeating -> digitizing uronode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flexnet -> flex net, flex-net, fleetness uronode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours uronode.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ftp://ftp.n1uro.net/packet/uronode-2.1.tar.gz <urlopen error ftp error: timed out> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 9 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint uronode uronode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US digipeating -> digitizing uronode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flexnet -> flex net, flex-net, fleetness uronode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours uronode.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ax25/uronode.users 0600L uronode.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ax25/uronode.perms 0600L uronode.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/uronode/LICENSE uronode.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/uronode uronode.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flexd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- uronode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(uronode) libax25.so.0()(64bit) libax25io.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd

Provides -------- uronode: config(uronode) uronode uronode(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1120771 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 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=1120771

Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) |

--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jan Synacek from comment #4)

Thanks for the review.

[ ]: 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 (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/uronode/1120771-uronode/licensecheck.txt

It looks like the legal question hasn't been sorted out yet.

I will sort it out, somehow :)

[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ax25

This directory is missing in %files.

Bug 1168929.

[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

Almost. In the description, s/colours/colors/.

Oxford Dictionary spelling. No problem to switch it to American.

[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.

Yes. There is also a xinetd file, which could be easily substituted with a systemd service/socket pair. It's not a problem, but IMHO a preferred solution.

NP, I will add it.

[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

Debuginfo is empty...

Thanks for catching, there were hidden strips :)

uronode.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/uronode/LICENSE

Please, notify upstream about this.

Upstream was already notified.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

--- Comment #7 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- New version: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/uronode/uronode.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/uronode/uronode-2.2-1.fc20.src.rpm

Rebased to latest upstream, MD2 dropped, added socket activation and other fixes.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

Jan Synacek jsynacek@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from Jan Synacek jsynacek@redhat.com --- Ok, all looks well now.

Regarding the LICENSE file, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines:

"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 must be included in %doc. If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake."

And:

"However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either:

Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance. It is worth noting that this may place some additional risk on the packager, however, Fedora believes that this risk is minimized by the fact that if the upstream disagrees with what we have distributed as the full license text, they can easily remedy this by making full license text available in the source code. Packagers who choose to do this should ensure that they have exhausted all attempts to work with upstream to include the license text as part of the source code, or at least, to confirm the full license text explicitly with the upstream, as this minimizes the risk on the packager. Packagers should also take copies of license texts from reliable and canonical sources (such as the Fedora Software Licenses page, the FSF licenses page, or the OSI license list), whenever possible. Choose not to package that software for Fedora."

This suggests that there hasn't have to be a LICENSE file included in the source, and that you *are* allowed to add one in some cases.

I didn't find any mention of license anywhere in the code, apart from includes and code taken from other sources. I think it would be OK to add a LICENSE file to the package, but I leave the decision to the packager.

APPROVING.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED Flags| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #11 from Jaroslav Škarvada jskarvad@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: uronode Short Description: Alternative packet radio system for Linux Upstream URL: http://www.n1uro.net Owners: jskarvad Branches: f20 f21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- uronode-2.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uronode-2.2-1.fc21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120771

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |uronode-2.2-1.fc21 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- uronode-2.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.