https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
Bug ID: 1913980 Summary: Review Request: iso-flags-svg - SVG country flags Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ti.eugene@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iso-flags-svg/iso-flags-svg.spec SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iso-flags-svg/iso-flags-svg-0-1.20180... Description: SVG country flags named according to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 Fedora Account System Username: tieugene
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59143768 Note: LXQT panel keyboard indicator ready for this by design.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
Ian McInerney ian.s.mcinerney@ieee.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ian.s.mcinerney@ieee.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Ian McInerney ian.s.mcinerney@ieee.org --- This isn't a review but an observation.
The linked spec file says the license is public domain, but the GitHub readme [1] states that "Most of the country flag icons are licensed under the Public Domain." The license for the spec file MUST cover the entire package, so upstream needs to clarify what license each SVG is under and provide a firm license statement.
[1] https://github.com/joielechong/iso-country-flags-svg-collection#related-proj...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #2 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com --- (In reply to Ian McInerney from comment #1)
This isn't a review but an observation.
The linked spec file says the license is public domain, but the GitHub readme [1] states that "Most of the country flag icons are licensed under the Public Domain." The license for the spec file MUST cover the entire package, so upstream needs to clarify what license each SVG is under and provide a firm license statement.
[1] https://github.com/joielechong/iso-country-flags-svg-collection#related- projects--todo--license
They say country flags cannot be copyrighted: https://github.com/hampusborgos/country-flags/issues/90
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |iso-flags-svg - SVG country |iso-country-flags - Country |flags |flags images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #3 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com --- (In reply to Ian McInerney from comment #1)
This isn't a review but an observation.
The linked spec file says the license is public domain, but the GitHub readme [1] states that "Most of the country flag icons are licensed under the Public Domain."
Thank you for advise, I found another flags source with strictly defined license (MIT). May be it will be possible to add svg icons in addition to bitmaps (good candidate is https://github.com/linssen/country-flag-icons), but licensing is too complex question for me.
Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iso-country-flags/iso-country-flags.s... SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iso-country-flags/iso-country-flags-0... Koji builds: EL7: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60901074 EL8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60901543 F32: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60901706 F33: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60902003 F34: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60902204
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Typo here:
%global gitowner gosquaredg
Should be
%global gitowner gosquared
- You need to add the shortcommit: and release should start at 0.1 for prelease:
Release: 0.1.20170202git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
[…]
* Sat Jan 30 2021 TI_Eugene ti.eugene@gmail.com 0-0.1.20170202git1d382a9
- Should be .tar.gz here:
Source0: https://github.com/%%7Bgitowner%7D/%%7Bgitproject%7D/archive/%%7Bcommit%7D/%...
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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". 8340 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/iso-country-flags/review-iso-country- flags/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: iso-country-flags-0-1.20170202.fc35.noarch.rpm iso-country-flags-0-1.20170202.fc35.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #5 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4)
- Typo here:
%global gitowner gosquaredg
Should be
%global gitowner gosquared
Fixed.
- You need to add the shortcommit: and release should start at 0.1 for
prelease:
Release: 0.1.20170202git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Fixed.
- Sat Jan 30 2021 TI_Eugene ti.eugene@gmail.com 0-0.1.20170202git1d382a9
Fixed.
- Should be .tar.gz here:
Source0: https://github.com/%%7Bgitowner%7D/%%7Bgitproject%7D/archive/%%7Bcommit%7D/%... %{shortcommit}.tar.gz
Fixed.
Spec: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iso-country-flags/iso-country-flags.s... SRPM: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iso-country-flags/iso-country-flags-0... Koji builds (just oldest and newest): EL7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80961829 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80961896
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/iso-country-flags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d5a2037212 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d5a2037212
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-7f244ded1d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7f244ded1d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-58df619f4c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-58df619f4c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0fa6370195 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0fa6370195
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-01-07 23:12:10
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-7f244ded1d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-7f244ded1d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7f244ded1d
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=1913980
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d5a2037212 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-d5a2037212 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d5a2037212
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=1913980
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0fa6370195 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0fa6370195
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=1913980
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-58df619f4c 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-2022-58df619f4c
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=1913980
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0fa6370195 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-7f244ded1d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d5a2037212 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913980
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-58df619f4c 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