https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
Bug ID: 2131949 Summary: Review Request: pageedit - ePub visual XHTML editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dan@danny.cz QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fedora.danny.cz/reviews/pageedit.spec SRPM URL: https://fedora.danny.cz/reviews/pageedit-1.9.20-1.fc36.src.rpm
Description: An ePub visual XHTML editor based on Sigil's Deprecated BookView.
Fedora Account System Username: sharkcz
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92607231
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |gwync@protonmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gwync@protonmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: [ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0 GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License Mozilla Public License 2.0 GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "NTP License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2 GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* LaTeX Project Public License GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* LaTeX Project Public License GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "ISC License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "MIT License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0". 214 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gwyn/2131949-pageedit/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 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]: 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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1269760 bytes in /usr/share [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]: 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) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3
pageedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pageedit-1.9.20-1.fc38.x86_64.debug pageedit.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized ePub visual XHTML editor pageedit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pageedit pageedit-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation pageedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation pageedit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pageedit-1.9.20-1.fc38.x86_64.debug /usr/bin/bash: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/pageedit-1.9.20-1.fc38.x86_64.debug'
pageedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ca/5b140b164512056fbeea37be4455ee3f1f2a88 ../../../.build-id/ca/5b140b164512056fbeea37be4455ee3f1f2a88 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Sigil-Ebook/PageEdit/archive/1.9.20/pageedit-1.9.20.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 87c9adf784fab7e03f1cb3368fda8d817fd918de90ea7ea7ebe115f365fabb6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 87c9adf784fab7e03f1cb3368fda8d817fd918de90ea7ea7ebe115f365fabb6c
Requires -------- pageedit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5()(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5WebEngineWidgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebEngineWidgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
pageedit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pageedit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pageedit: application() application(pageedit.desktop) bundled(gumbo) mimehandler(application/xhtml+xml) pageedit pageedit(x86-64)
pageedit-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pageedit-debuginfo pageedit-debuginfo(x86-64)
pageedit-debugsource: pageedit-debugsource pageedit-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2131949 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, Perl, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Overall I'd like you to review the licensing and make sure all relevant licenses are represented in the tag. Otherwise it looks good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
--- Comment #2 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz --- I believe GPL-3.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0 is correct, the main code (*.cc, *.h) is GPLv3+ (plus the *.mm file is also ASL 2.0), the bundled gumbo library (gumbo-subtree) is ASL 2.0. The "random" licenses are from the spellcheck dictionaries, which are not included in the binary rpm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Ah, that makes sense.
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pageedit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
Dan Horák dan@danny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |pageedit-1.9.20-1.fc38 Last Closed| |2022-10-05 19:33:21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3d0e43c81a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3d0e43c81a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eaf5e51ea8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eaf5e51ea8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3d0e43c81a has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3d0e43c81a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3d0e43c81a
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eaf5e51ea8 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-eaf5e51ea8 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eaf5e51ea8
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-eaf5e51ea8 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131949
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-3d0e43c81a has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com