https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
Bug ID: 2335618 Summary: Review Request: Aegisub - Tool for creating and modifying subtitles Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: elfile4138@elfile4138.moe QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Package: Aegisub Description: Aegisub is an advanced subtitle editor which assists in the creation of subtitles, timing, and editing of subtitle files. It supports a wide range of formats and provides powerful visual typesetting tools.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/Aegisub/fedor... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/Aegisub/fedor...
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/el-file4138/Aegisub/build/8471731/ Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127557570
Fedora Account System Username: el-file4138
Issues: - New contributors Requesting to be sponsored. Self Introduction: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
- Spec file mismatch Used %autochangelog.
- No documentation Upstream did not provide documentation. The manual can be viewed on the project website.
- Bundled library Bundled library `luabins` is in form of pure source code, is not included in Fedora Package registry, and does not provide additional shared library.
Not sure whether this requires FPC grants, but if do hereby requesting.
- Project Licensing
Upstream hasn't finished clearing the decade-old codebase, thus the licensing is diversified:
Declared in Meson Builds (Currently acknowledged project-wide license): BSD-3-Clause
LICENCE file: BSD-3-Clause for the project, and indicates:
src/gl/ - MIT license. See src/gl/glext.h
src/MatroskaParser.(c|h) - Licensed to BSDL with permission from the author.
# Not included currently universalchardet/ - MPL 1.1
Auto scanned:
GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Copied from AviSynth, GPL-2.0 project but grants exemption from GPL license src/avisynth.h
MIT License ----------- automation/autoload/cleantags-autoload.lua automation/include/cleantags.lua # Included subproject subprojects/luabins/COPYRIGHT subprojects/luabins/src/luabins.h
ISC License ----------- automation/autoload/select-overlaps.moon automation/autoload/strip-tags.lua automation/include/aegisub/argcheck.moon automation/include/aegisub/clipboard.lua automation/include/aegisub/ffi.moon ... 339 file omitted
Auto scanned with correction:
Khronos License --------------- # Corrected by LICENCE file src/gl/glext.h
*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2 ---------------------------------------------------- # All locale file are distributed under the same license with the main project po/fi.po po/fr_FR.po po/pt_BR.po po/tr.po po/zh_CN.po po/zh_TW.po
***
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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "ISC License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "MIT License", "Khronos License". 989 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /review-Aegisub/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [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: [?]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3962880 bytes in /usr/share [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).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: Aegisub-3.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm Aegisub-3.4.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpv5t98rhx')] checks: 32, packages: 2
Aegisub.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aegisub Aegisub.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: Aegisub-debuginfo-3.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp6rmwyg9c')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 2
Aegisub.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aegisub Aegisub.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/releases/download/v3.4.1/Aegisub... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58ec2420be98a7dc71d25b24be190515b6e158bd325f019346452aa134e87e95 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58ec2420be98a7dc71d25b24be190515b6e158bd325f019346452aa134e87e95
Requires -------- Aegisub (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libass.so.9()(64bit) libboost_locale.so.1.83.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libffms2.so.5()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libhunspell-1.7.so.0()(64bit) libicui18n.so.76()(64bit) libicuuc.so.76()(64bit) libluajit-5.1.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenal.so.1()(64bit) libportaudio.so.2()(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libuchardet.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_stc-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_stc-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- Aegisub: Aegisub Aegisub(x86-64) application() application(org.aegisub.Aegisub.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(org.aegisub.Aegisub.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(application/x-srt) mimehandler(text/plain) mimehandler(text/x-ass) mimehandler(text/x-microdvd) mimehandler(text/x-ssa)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /media/WorkDir/Documents/Projects/Coding/Others/rpm/aegisub/Aegisub.spec 2025-01-04 23:57:01.953033399 +0100 +++ /media/WorkDir/Documents/Projects/Coding/Others/rpm/aegisub/review-Aegisub/srpm-unpacked/Aegisub.spec 2025-01-04 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,7 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autochangelog +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global gituser TypesettingTools %global altname aegisub @@ -80,3 +85,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog \ 文件末尾没有换行符 +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat Jan 04 2025 John Doe packager@example.com - 3.4.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n Aegisub Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/%%7Bgituse | |r}/%{name} Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8471755 (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=2335618
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this package for review.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #3 from Matrew File elfile4138@elfile4138.moe --- Update:
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/Aegisub/fedor... Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/Aegisub/fedor...
Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/el-file4138/Aegisub/build/8518595/
Change: - Update to upstream 3.4.2 - Corrected one requirement
Pushing for review and sponsoring.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2066311 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2066311&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8471755 to 8522139
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8522139 (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=2335618
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(elfile4138@elfile | |4138.moe) Assignee|ngompa13@gmail.com |dominik@greysector.net
--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Taking over with permission from Neal.
Matrew, could you post a fresh src.rpm and spec file? It seems your COPR repo for this doesn't exist anymore.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
Matrew File elfile4138@elfile4138.moe changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(elfile4138@elfile | |4138.moe) |
--- Comment #7 from Matrew File elfile4138@elfile4138.moe --- Sure, the existing building is over here.
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/vapoursynth-c... Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/vapoursynth-c...
Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/el-file4138/vapoursynth-classic/buil...
A new build using the exact spec file is done, but Copr didn't upload artifacts. It's at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/el-file4138/Aegisub/build/9019084/
Notice that it currently doesn't work out of the box due to lacking EGL fallback. This can be fixed now with some wrapper script hack but it's mostly an upstream issue. I'm inclined to wait for the upstream to pass the fix (https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/pull/375), but if you suggest it can be patched in the packaging process.
Also, I'm currently still not sponsored. I would be happy if you could review my status/contribution and offer a sponsorship.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2089414 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2089414&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8522139 to 9019140
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9019140 (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=2335618
--- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Matrew File from comment #7)
Notice that it currently doesn't work out of the box due to lacking EGL fallback. This can be fixed now with some wrapper script hack but it's mostly an upstream issue. I'm inclined to wait for the upstream to pass the fix (https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/pull/375), but if you suggest it can be patched in the packaging process.
Your PR looks clean and works, so I'm in favour of patching this downstream.
Also, I'm currently still not sponsored. I would be happy if you could review my status/contribution and offer a sponsorship.
That's not a problem. Could you do a couple of reviews in the meantime and link them here?
Some preliminary comments: 1. Package name should be lowercase (aegisub). Most other distributions (except Void), including existing RPM Fusion package for Fedora, use lowercase. Even upstream themselves use lowercase in many places.
2. Please use rm -rv here so that it's visible what gets deleted: find subprojects/ -mindepth 1 ! -path "subprojects/luabins*" -exec rm -rf {} +
3. Use rm -rv instead of -rf here: rm -rf packages/{osx_bundle,osx_dmg,win_installer} rm -rf tools/{osx-*,apply-manifest.py,*.ps1} rm -rf osx-bundle.sed
3. The comments in the %files section are redundant. %files -f %{altname}.lang # Application Desktop Entry %{_datadir}/applications/org.%{altname}.%{name}.desktop # metainfo %{_metainfodir}/org.%{altname}.%{name}.metainfo.xml # Executable %{_bindir}/%{altname}* # Plugins %{_datadir}/%{altname}/ # Application Icons %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/org.%{altname}.%{name}.* # License %license LICENCE
4. src/gl/glext.h seems to be an ancient version of /usr/include/GL/glext.h provided by mesa, but it doesn't seem to be used in the build.
5. There seems to be a test suite present in tests/ Could you get it to run in %check? A straightforward %check %meson_test seems to work here.
6. cajun-jsonapi seems to be bundled (libaegisub/{common,include}/cajun/*) but it's not declared with Provides: bundled(cajun-jsonapi). Bonus points if you can figure out the version.
7. BuildRequires lines should be sorted alphabetically.
8. The following BuildRequires: are not required to build, please drop them: git (only required for building from git repo and even then it should be git-core) intltool jansson-devel libcurl-devel (seems to be required only for the built-in update checker, which you should disable, anyway) libX11-devel lua-devel (only luajit is required)
BuildRequires: libicu-devel is missing (though it's pulled in by boost-devel).
BuildRequires: gettext is missing (though it's pulled in by fontconfig-devel indirectly).
9. meson finds dependencies using pkg-config, so they should be converted to BuildRequires: pkgcongfig(foo) style.
10. Release: 1%{?dist} You're using %autochangelog. Any reason why not %autorelease as well?
11. %global gituser TypesettingTools This seems to be used exactly once, so what's the point of the indirection.
12. # Main project is under BSD-3-Clause, some historical code is under ISC, and a few MIT License: BSD-3-Clause AND ISC AND MIT
You need to enumerate which source files are under which license. It's OK to say e.g.: # most code is under BSD-3-Clause, except: # foo/bar.c: MIT # bar/baz.c: ISC
13. libaegisub/lua/modules/lpeg.{c,h} seems to be a bundled version of: https://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~roberto/lpeg/ That is packaged in Fedora already as lua-lpeg. Please check if it can be unbundled or at least declare it with Provides: bundled(lpeg) = <lpeg_version>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #11 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- Change this
BuildRequires: mesa-libGL-devel
to
BuildRequires: libglvnd-devel
mesa-libGL-devel isn't the right requirement, I doubt aegisub uses anything it provides
$ rpm -ql mesa-libGL-devel /usr/include/GL /usr/include/GL/internal /usr/include/GL/internal/dri_interface.h /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/dri.pc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #12 from Matrew File elfile4138@elfile4138.moe --- SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/aegisub/fedor... Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/aegisub/fedor...
Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/el-file4138/aegisub/build/9041266/
Fixed: 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
4. The file is built (albeit an incorrect usage), at `src/gl_wrap.cpp:L26-32`. The introduction commit is 18 years old, and the current maintainer replies "this is something I wanted to look into at some point but haven't yet" (quoted with permission).
6. Info provided. Header information was changed at 2.0.2, so the introduced version is vetted to be 2.0.1. Extensive modification has been made to the point that one file has completely changed Copyright, so unbundling would be infeasible.
13. Info provided, as unbundling infeasible. The bundled version is 0.1.0, which has a major difference with the current shipping version, and with upstream modification.
I'm afraid such bundling also happens elsewhere many times in the project, just a matter of time to dig out. Considering 20 yrs of tech debt buried deep, upstream would have little interest in having a throughout weeding in the short term.
If there's any other problem, I would be happy to respond.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2089862 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2089862&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9019140 to 9041303
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9041303 (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=2335618
--- Comment #15 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Issues: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, ... Please add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme or add ownership of %{_datadir}/share/icons/hicolor and below to the package.
Please fix the above and it's approved.
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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "ISC License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "MIT License", "Khronos License". 832 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/aegisub/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24 [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [-]: 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. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3962880 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: aegisub-3.4.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm aegisub-3.4.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpzky04p6i')] checks: 32, packages: 2
aegisub.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aegisub aegisub.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: aegisub-debuginfo-3.4.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpvem36y1k')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "aegisub-debuginfo". ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 2
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "aegisub". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/TypesettingTools/aegisub/releases/download/v3.4.2/aegisub... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 10d0810429cd91b0483990fbad7d45b2ae8d799b034f2a40b731ace7f2ae4325 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 10d0810429cd91b0483990fbad7d45b2ae8d799b034f2a40b731ace7f2ae4325
Requires -------- aegisub (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libass.so.9()(64bit) libboost_locale.so.1.83.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libffms2.so.5()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libhunspell-1.7.so.0()(64bit) libicui18n.so.76()(64bit) libicuuc.so.76()(64bit) libluajit-5.1.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenal.so.1()(64bit) libportaudio.so.2()(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libuchardet.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_stc-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_stc-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- aegisub: aegisub aegisub(x86-64) application() application(org.aegisub.Aegisub.desktop) bundled(cajun-jsonapi) bundled(lua-lpeg) bundled(lua-luabins) metainfo() metainfo(org.aegisub.Aegisub.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(application/x-srt) mimehandler(text/plain) mimehandler(text/x-ass) mimehandler(text/x-microdvd) mimehandler(text/x-ssa)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name aegisub --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #15)
Issues: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, ... Please add Requires: hicolor-icon-theme or add ownership of %{_datadir}/share/icons/hicolor and below to the package.
Please fix the above and it's approved.
Please do not co-own hicolor-icon-theme directories. Just require hicolor-icon-theme.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #17 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- I've heard a few voices in favour of using capitalized Aegisub as the package name, pointing to upstream naming and Fedora Packaging Naming Guidelines saying we should follow upstream: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_general_n... I'm fine with this, provided you add:
Provides: aegisub = %{version} Obsoletes: aegisub < 3.4.2-3
This is to ensure smooth update from the latest build from RPM Fusion, i.e. 3.4.2-2.fc42 (https://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=30621).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #18 from Matrew File elfile4138@elfile4138.moe --- Currently, both Debian package and AUR package `aegisub-git` (which is maintained by the maintainer) use lowercase. I would assume upstream does not have a preference on this, so I'm keeping the lowercase for consistency.
`hicolor-icon-theme` requirement has been fixed.
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/aegisub/fedor... Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/aegisub/fedor...
Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/el-file4138/aegisub/build/9056892/ fedora-review file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/aegisub/fedor...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2090160 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2090160&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9041303 to 9057033
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9057033 (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=2335618
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #21 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- All issues resolved, APPROVED.
I'm also sponsoring Matrew into the packager group.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: Aegisub - |Review Request: aegisub - |Tool for creating and |Tool for creating and |modifying subtitles |modifying subtitles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-58f8446785 (aegisub-3.4.2-3.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-58f8446785
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-05-20 13:49:36
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-58f8446785 (aegisub-3.4.2-3.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com