[Bug 2165381] New: Review Request: ancient - Modern decompressor for old data compression formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Bug ID: 2165381 Summary: Review Request: ancient - Modern decompressor for old data compression formats Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cra@fea.st QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/ancient/ancient.spec SRPM URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/ancient/ancient-2.0.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: This is a collection of decompression routines for old formats popular in the Amiga, Atari computers and some other systems from 80's and 90's as well as some that are currently used which were used in a some specific way in these old systems. Fedora Account System Username: cra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Charles R. Anderson cra@fea.st changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |2163583
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163583 [Bug 2163583] ocp-0.2.102 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5355028 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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]: 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: [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: "BSD 2-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "bzip2 and libbzip2 License v1.0.6". 171 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/ancient/2165381-ancient/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 1 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ancient- devel , ancient-libs [ ]: 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. [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]: 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: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ancient-2.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ancient-devel-2.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ancient-libs-2.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ancient-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ancient-debugsource-2.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ancient-2.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================== rpmlint session starts ============================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp47kod104')] checks: 31, packages: 6
ancient.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ancient ancient-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.8 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ancient-libs-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ancient-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ============================== rpmlint session starts ============================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpeawo8nra')] checks: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 6
ancient-libs.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libancient.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 ancient.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ancient ancient-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 4.5 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/temisu/ancient/archive/v2.0.0/ancient-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9c6b31e4d968ec3adb25596a0b30405d1080d3de0546f1485ecb0ac2eca6261d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c6b31e4d968ec3adb25596a0b30405d1080d3de0546f1485ecb0ac2eca6261d
Requires -------- ancient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libancient.so.2()(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_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ancient-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config ancient-libs(x86-64) libancient.so.2()(64bit)
ancient-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ancient-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ancient-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- ancient: ancient ancient(x86-64)
ancient-devel: ancient-devel ancient-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libancient)
ancient-libs: ancient-libs ancient-libs(x86-64) libancient.so.2()(64bit)
ancient-debuginfo: ancient-debuginfo ancient-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id)
ancient-debugsource: ancient-debugsource ancient-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2165381 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Ruby, R, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) There is a test script, but upstream has not included any test data. Maybe this could be added to the repo? b) Assume none of the algorithms are under a patent? c) Is it possible to add a smoke test, for example ancient --help d) devel package does not need a license file as it will be pulled in from libs package e) Builds on all architectures https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/ancient/build/5569005/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Please don’t glob over a shared directory; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists.
You can change
%{_bindir}/*
to
%{_bindir}/ancient
in the %files list.
----
a) There is a test script, but upstream has not included any test data. Maybe this could be added to the repo?
Considering that this tool is intended for files from the 1980’s-1990’s, I strongly suspect that the test data is not included because it is all non-free.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #4 from Charles R. Anderson cra@fea.st --- Thank you for the review. I have updated the package:
Spec URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/ancient/ancient.spec SRPM URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/ancient/ancient-2.0.0-2.fc37.src.rpm
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
a) There is a test script, but upstream has not included any test data. Maybe this could be added to the repo? c) Is it possible to add a smoke test, for example ancient --help
I added a test that verifies ancient decompressing Source0's gzip compression.
b) Assume none of the algorithms are under a patent?
I'm not a patent attorney, but I assume so--these are either ancient file formats or formats that are already implemented in other parts of Fedora. Nothing here is called out as explicitly prohibited on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packag... or the linked documents therein. I'm not sure what else is expected of a packager on this point, especially considering that doing a patent review could actually increase legal exposure.
d) devel package does not need a license file as it will be pulled in from libs package
Removed.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3)
Please don’t glob over a shared directory; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists. %{_bindir}/ancient
Done.
a) There is a test script, but upstream has not included any test data. Maybe this could be added to the repo?
Considering that this tool is intended for files from the 1980’s-1990’s, I strongly suspect that the test data is not included because it is all non-free.
Agreed. Hopefully the gzip test I implemented is sufficient.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1946834 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1946834&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5355028 to 5575504
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/temisu/a | |ncient
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5575504 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Guidelines are not clear on this. Full patent search seems difficult. Given their age, expect not or if they had they are expired, but for compression typically good to check. Raised an issue: https://github.com/temisu/ancient/issues/41
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Upstream indicates no knowledge of algorithms being covered by patents. Quick search does not show anything either. Is this sufficient?
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | CC| |rfontana@redhat.com
--- Comment #9 from Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com --- Lifting FE-Legal,
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ancient
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
Charles R. Anderson cra@fea.st changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2023-03-09 04:42:58
--- Comment #12 from Charles R. Anderson cra@fea.st --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6a39297686
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2bf1e6c40c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2bf1e6c40c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-89c62dc3f4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-89c62dc3f4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c15f9d4a7d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c15f9d4a7d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2bf1e6c40c has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2bf1e6c40c
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=2165381
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-89c62dc3f4 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-2023-89c62dc3f4 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-89c62dc3f4
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=2165381
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c15f9d4a7d 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-2023-c15f9d4a7d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c15f9d4a7d
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=2165381
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-2bf1e6c40c has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-89c62dc3f4 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c15f9d4a7d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com