Bug 2316944

Summary: Review Request: squawk - Qt based XMPP messenger
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Benson Muite <benson_muite>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton>
Status: ASSIGNED --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: jeremy.linton, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: ppisar: fedora-review?
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://git.macaw.me/blue/squawk
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 2315907    
Bug Blocks:    

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-10-07 12:29:12 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8113532
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316944-squawk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08113532-squawk/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Comment 2 Jeremy Linton 2024-10-09 21:29:17 UTC
So, two comments/questions before I 'fail' a couple of sections.

First, SimpleCrypt, is only being used for the 'jammer' password option. Simply removing that option solves a bunch of the BSD/something license issues, right? S why not just remove it as an option, plain text, user entered, or kwallet gives the gammut of 'don't care', 'don't trust' and 'reasonable option'.
Then there isn't the whole "how legitimate is it to update the license" "why doesn't the license file call out BSD" "Without the update the license isn't valid for fedora" issues.

Secondly, the .so plugins dependencies aren't being picked up by the automatic library dependency logic and that results in missing dependencies. I think those should be manually requires/recommended because it possible some of them won't be installed (ex:kf5-kwallet).

Other than that, at the moment it looks reasonable when checked against the lmdbal library. I can/will post the full review template if you don't see this/fix it in the next day or so.

Comment 3 Jeremy Linton 2024-10-09 21:36:12 UTC
Just to clarify, even if we agree that reverting/updating the license file so its a BSD-3-Clause as originally intended is a legal/legitimate change, that then causes a problem because the binary using it is in violation of the license because its not carrying the required copyright.

IMHO its better to just remove the BSD-3-Clause code from the binary/project. KISS, and it removes a completely bogus password save option too.

Comment 4 Benson Muite 2024-10-13 17:26:21 UTC
Upstream is updating. Will create a new srpm once that is done.