https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
Bug ID: 1862842 Summary: Review Request: icon - Icon programming language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: spacewar@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/icon/icon.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/icon/icon-9.5.20h-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Icon is a high-level general-purpose programming language with novel features including string scanning and goal-directed evaluation. Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha
Rpmlint gives errors about zero-length files, but those zero-length files are correct and necessary for the Icon library to work.
Rpmlint gives various warnings, of which IMHO the only one of significance is having a ".h" file in a non-devel package I didn't think it made sense to create a -devel subpackage for a single header file, but I'll do that if the reviewer considers it important.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andymenderunix@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |andymenderunix@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Extra Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48660617
Name: icon Version: 9.5.20h Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Icon programming language License: Public Domain
licensecheck picked up a couple of files with the NTP license: icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/ppmtoxpm.1: NTP License icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/ppmtoxpm.c: NTP License icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/xpmtoppm.1: NTP License icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/xpmtoppm.c: NTP License icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/doc/COPYRIGHT: NTP License
More info about the license here: https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP It's not listed in the Fedora license cheatsheet: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
The text seems similar to the BSD license.
# libraries install -d -m0755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} install -p -m0644 -s bin/libcfunc.so %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}
For the main package, shouldn't this SO file be versioned?
%files # rpmlint will give errors regarding some libdir/icon/*.u1 files being # zero-length, but that is correct. %license README %{_bindir}/icon %{_bindir}/icon[tx] %{_includedir}/icall.h
If the header is not actually needed for anything, I would remove it / remove the install %{_includedir} lines.
The main review matrix:
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: icon : /usr/include/icall.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Review: see earlier comment [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Public domain", "NTP License". 962 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/icon/icon/licensecheck.txt Review: see earlier comments [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. Review: see earlier comments about licensing [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package Review: see earlier comment [?]: 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. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 24 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: Yes, except for SO versioning and the lonely header file [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Review: doesn't, but justifiably [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. Review: tested in Koji [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: icon-9.5.20h-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm icon-utils-9.5.20h-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm icon-debuginfo-9.5.20h-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm icon-debugsource-9.5.20h-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm icon-9.5.20h-1.fc33.src.rpm icon.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Icon icon.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/icall.h icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/core.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/dialogs.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/gobject.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/graphics.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/grecords.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/imutils.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/lindrec.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/seqfncs.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/vidgets.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/vrml1lib.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/vrml2lib.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/xcolor.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/xio.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/xplane.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/xputpixl.u1 icon.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/icon/xqueue.u1 icon.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iconx icon-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation icon-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colrbook icon-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary colrpick icon-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fontpick icon-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary icon-xgamma icon-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary palette icon-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vib icon-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wevents icon.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Icon 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 16 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: icon-debuginfo-9.5.20h-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name icon-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name icon (none): E: no installed packages by name icon-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name icon-utils 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- icon: /usr/lib64/icon/libcfunc.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gtownsend/icon/archive/v9.5.20h/icon-v9.5.20h.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 04d3a6830e7674081a9074335a0ad43a8a37c9718f0a39d185f587ee06021829 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04d3a6830e7674081a9074335a0ad43a8a37c9718f0a39d185f587ee06021829
Requires -------- icon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
icon-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh icon(x86-64)
icon-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
icon-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- icon: icon icon(x86-64)
icon-utils: icon-utils icon-utils(x86-64)
icon-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) icon-debuginfo icon-debuginfo(x86-64)
icon-debugsource: icon-debugsource icon-debugsource(x86-64)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com ---
licensecheck picked up a couple of files with the NTP license: icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/ppmtoxpm.1: NTP License icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/ppmtoxpm.c: NTP License icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/xpmtoppm.1: NTP License icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/converters/xpmtoppm.c: NTP License icon-9.5.20h/src/xpm/doc/COPYRIGHT: NTP License
I asked Fedora Legal regarding the NTP license when reviewing another package and the text matches one of the MIT license variants so it's okay to put "MIT" in the License field for these files so kind of like this:
# xpm/converters/ppmtoxpm.*: MIT licensed # xpm/converters/xpmtoppm.*: MIT licensed License: Public Domain and MIT
BuildRequires: libX11-devel BuildRequires: libXt-devel
Both of these provide pkgconfig files, hence one could/should use something like this instead: BuildRequires: pkgconfig(x11) BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xt)
Let me know if you need further help with improving the SPEC file :).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
--- Comment #3 from Eric Smith spacewar@gmail.com --- The easiest thing to do for the xpm library is delete the bundled library and use the system library in its place. I now have that working.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/icon/icon.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/icon/icon-9.5.20h-2.fc31.src.rpm
I could move icall.h to a -devel subpackage, but it would be the only file in that subpackage, which is why I hadn't done that. If you really think that's the right thing, I'll do it.
I'm reluctant to version the .so because: 1) upstream doesn't version it, and Icon programs that use it wouldn't know to look for a versioned library. 2) it's not intended for use by any other package. The only use of it is by Icon programs, to call external C functions that weren't necessarily intended to be called by Icon. It's not anything useful for non-Icon programs as might be present in other Fedora packages. As such, it might be better placed in libexec, but Icon programs wouldn't know to look for it there, so I'd rather leave it in libdir.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com ---
The easiest thing to do for the xpm library is delete the bundled library and use the system library in its place. I now have that working.
Awesome!
I could move icall.h to a -devel subpackage, but it would be the only file in that subpackage, which is why I hadn't done that. If you really think that's the right thing, I'll do it.
I had a look at the icall.h header. I don't think it's worth creating a separate -devel package. You can keep it in the main package. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's needed by the main Icon binary itself, right?
As for versioning of the SO file, if the shared library is internal to Icon, it doesn't need to be versioned.
There was a new release recently: https://github.com/gtownsend/icon/releases/tag/v9.5.20i Could you bump the version in the SPEC file accordingly? :)
Other than that, package approved!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
--- Comment #5 from Eric Smith spacewar@gmail.com --- Thanks for reviewing! I don't think the icon binary itself needs the icall.h header. I believe it is provided for the purpose of building add-on modules, so conceptually I think it would belong in a -devel subpackage, but it sounds like we're in agreement that it's not worth having a subpackage for just the one header file.
I updated to 9.5.20i per your request, so I think this is ready to go.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/icon/icon.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/icon/icon-9.5.20i-1.fc31.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/icon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5b94659fbd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5b94659fbd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bca491b47c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bca491b47c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5b94659fbd has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-5b94659fbd *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5b94659fbd
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=1862842
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bca491b47c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bca491b47c
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=1862842
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-09-23 17:12:07
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-5b94659fbd has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bca491b47c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com