https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
Bug ID: 2227502 Summary: Review Request: cmark-gfm - GitHub's fork of cmark Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/mindforger/fedora-... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/mindforger/fedora-...
Description: An extended version of the C reference implementation of CommonMark, a rationalized version of Markdown syntax with a spec.
fas: fed500
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://www.github.com/gith | |ub/cmark-gfm
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6223282 (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=2227502
Tom Rix trix@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |petersen@redhat.com, | |trix@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |trix@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- There are at least 2 other cmark's.. what's one more ? It would be good if cmark-gfm.spec was consistent with cmark.spec, with additions to the description on why a user would want to use this version over the the other. It's github's fork. Why would someone want to use this ? Looking for something simple like .. 'Needed to run this or that github workflow .. ' added to the description.
I looked at houdini. Would it be worth its own package ?
Review the houdini source and the list of files that are claimed to have an MIT license. It looks like cmark and cmark-gfm's use a derivative of houdini's buffer.* The copyright boiler plate from houdini has been stripped from the cmark version.
/* * Copyright (C) the libgit2 contributors. All rights reserved. * * This file is part of libgit2, distributed under the GNU GPL v2 with * a Linking Exception. For full terms see the included COPYING file. */
gpl v2 != mit And stripping copyrights is not good. This license and copyright problem should be resolved in the upstream. If it can't, then add gpl v2 to the license list in the rpm, with a detail explanation on the provenance of the buffer files. This also effects the other cmark's in fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks, included code seems to have been relicensed: https://github.com/commonmark/cmark/issues/480
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
--- Comment #4 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- Is vmg the copyright holder for all these files ? The stripping of copy right headers and relicensing should be done only by the holder. ex/ utf8.h's copyright was stripped from utf8proc.h's and it says
'The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included with all copies or substantial portions of the Software'
When the header is removed, a new user could copy utf8.* to some new project and then the notice would not go with it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- For utf8.h and utf8.c the notice is in the Copying file: https://github.com/github/cmark-gfm/blob/master/COPYING#L78
Maybe it is best to suggest retaining copyright notices at the top of each file derived from other sources?
Can package houdini separately, would need to update it to a shared library.
buffer.c and buffer.h were added in commit afeecf4f262b74270368ef8a70c582ea9d5a18e8 in libgit2 https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2 by vmg author of houdini so expect relicensing of these is ok.
Cannot find chunk.h in the libgit2 history
It was added to cmark-gfm by vmg: https://github.com/github/cmark-gfm/commit/460d46c62b0675f2fab6f103bb9f0d185...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
--- Comment #6 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- I have opened this issue https://github.com/github/cmark-gfm/issues/348
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
--- Comment #7 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- No response yet.. Maybe reference the COPYING file directly in the spec file and provide some comments on the provenance of the the files in question.
The version in the changelog looks off, can this change to be what is really used ?
If you have some time and interest, could you review another pytorch related package ?https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238217
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
Tom Rix trix@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #8 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- Still no response. How about we go with what I recommended above and respin the spec with some comments ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Raised an issue in the original repository: https://github.com/commonmark/cmark/issues/480
Will make a pull request that adds the header information, then try to update cmark-gfm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- https://github.com/commonmark/cmark/pull/483
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
Tom Rix trix@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #11 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- Did you want to add this as a patch and go forward with the package ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Will wait until January to see if get feedback on the pull request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
Xavier Bachelot xavier@bachelot.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |xavier@bachelot.org Flags| |fedora-review?
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org