Bug 2116217

*** Bug 2116218 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

This is a package rename review from libphidget to libphidget22 as upstream has embedded the soname in the package name.

See comments at the bottom.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 3", "FSF All Permissive License", "[generated file]", "FSF
     Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU
     General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License
     [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
     [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public
     License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License
     Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention)", "GNU Lesser General Public License
     v3.0 or later", "Unicode strict", "zlib License", "GNU General Public
     License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License",
     "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "NTP License",
     "ISC License", "BSD 2-clause NetBSD License BSD 2-Clause License". 247
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2116217-libphidget22/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /lib/udev, /lib/udev/rules.d
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /lib/udev, /lib/udev/rules.d
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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 2 files.
[!]: 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 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[!]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://www.phidgets.com/downloads/phidget22/libraries/linux/libphidget22/libphidget22-1.10.20220530.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5a28a9b90157928020f1080529398f947304e8f32ba310cfc9962020a99ae421
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a28a9b90157928020f1080529398f947304e8f32ba310cfc9962020a99ae421


Requires
--------
libphidget22 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    avahi-compat-libdns_sd
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    udev

libphidget22-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libphidget22(x86-64)
    libphidget22.so.0()(64bit)

libphidget22-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libphidget22-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libphidget22:
    libphidget
    libphidget22
    libphidget22(x86-64)
    libphidget22.so.0()(64bit)
    libphidget22.so.0(phid22_1.0)(64bit)

libphidget22-devel:
    libphidget22-devel
    libphidget22-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libphidget22)

libphidget22-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libphidget22-debuginfo
    libphidget22-debuginfo(x86-64)
    libphidget22.so.0.0.0-1.10.20220530-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

libphidget22-debugsource:
    libphidget22-debugsource
    libphidget22-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2116217-libphidget22/srpm/libphidget22.spec    2022-08-08 17:59:51.647167133 -0500
+++ /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2116217-libphidget22/srpm-unpacked/libphidget22.spec   2022-08-07 20:13:45.000000000 -0500
@@ -16,4 +16,6 @@
 BuildRequires:  avahi-devel
 BuildRequires:  avahi-compat-libdns_sd-devel
+#BuildRequires:  java-devel >= 1:1.6.0
+#BuildRequires:  jpackage-utils
 BuildRequires:  libusb1-devel
 BuildRequires:  make


AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libphidget22-1.10.20220530/configure.ac:44


Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2116217
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Python, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


Comments:
------------------------------

The `License` field needs to follow SPDX [1] so it should be "LGPL-3.0-or-later" since this projects license specifically allows later versions.

The license field also needs to be expanded to cover the wide varienty of included files. See the output from fedora-review's license check. [6]

The license also needs to be included with the sub-packages.

---

As this is a C application you need a `BuildRequires: gcc`.  [5]

---

The URL 301s to https anyway so I'd change http to https.

---

You should set the java sub-package to only compile on compatible arches. [3][4]

The example PR at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/graphviz/pull-request/9#request_diff might help.

---

Under %files you use `%{_includedir}/*` which is forbidden.  [2]

---

/lib/udev is the wrong place to put udev files.  You should the macro `%{_udevrulesdir}` which translates to `/usr/lib/udev/rules.d`


[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists
[3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_architecture_support
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_JDKs
[5] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/#_buildrequires_and_requires
[6] https://pastebin.com/NEarrRk3

Ack! Forgot about the SPDX thing since this is a rename and I wasn't the original packager. 

I meant to rip out all the java stuff. Just forgot the subpackage. The current version of the library is circa 2014 and there no longer appears to be any dependency on it. 

As far as the licensing due to mos, I'm assuming something like:

License: LGPL-3.0-or-later and BSD-2-Clause and BSD-3-Clause

Parts of mos are BSD 2, 3, and 4 in addition to ISC, NTP, GPLv2, and a few "FSF Unlimited License" variants.

I think they all need to be listed in `License` with some comments as to what's used where.  I think generalizations should be fine like "parts of mos are X, Y, and Z licenses", etc.

Hmm.. I may need to go through the list again but I think there's a misunderstanding.

Only the files that go into the resultant package really matter. The autoconf/libtool stuff is only used for building the project. Another example would be your package review. The license for CMake has no bearing on the license of the project you're building. 

<sigh> licenses are a pain.

I thought the same thing but then in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2115901#c5 it was clarified to me from someone with far more packaging experience than I.

I agree, licensing is annoying especially when a project has so many in it.

I think you two were talking past each other. Something can be bundled in the source but not used in the resultant package that doesn't count. That being said, he was correct that "bundled stuff you're not using should be rm -rf'd" so you're sure it doesn't sneak in later by accident and upstreams build system should be able to handle optional dependencies sources being removed (I've submitted a fair few PRs due to this over the years).

Bundled sources that you do use in the resultant binary/library obviously do count, so in this case BSD 2/3 Clause due to the bundled mos. 

It's not common but it's entirely possible for a subpackage to have different license references from the main package (or other sub-packages) but in practice I don't think packagers/reviewers generally dig that far.

Spec URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/libphidget22.spec
SRPM URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/libphidget22-1.10.20220530-2.fc36.src.rpm

* Fri Aug 12 2022 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069> - 1.10.20220530-2
- Update per reviewer comments:
  Update license
  Fix BR on gcc
  Remove remnants of java package from older version
  Fix include in %%files
  Install udev rule in correct location


Assuming we're good on the license field at this point.

> License:        LGPL-3.0-or-later

This doesn't cover any of the licenses for bundled(mos).

https://pastebin.com/1CFziVBF

While not all of these represent code in the resultant package, many do and should be added accordingly based on your own comments above (and my updated understanding of licensing guidelines).

Forgot to fix the licensing, fixed now per comment 4.

You put "bundled mod" and I think you meant "bundled mos".  Please correct that before building the package.

Approved.

Fixed. Thanks for the review!

If you could look at one or two of mine that'd be awesome!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2118887
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2118837
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120002

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libphidget22