Bug 2369536
| Summary: | Review Request: asahi-plymouth - Plymouth theme for Asahi Linux | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Davide Cavalca <davide> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ben Beasley <code> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | code, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | code:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-07-13 14:23:45 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Davide Cavalca
2025-05-31 04:25:48 UTC
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=133367918 Looking at the README.md:
> ## Attributions
> * The Asahi Linux logo was created by <a href="https://soundflora.tokyo/">soundflora*</a> and <a href="https://github.com/marcan/">Hector Martin</a>. It is > available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
>
> * The Apple-like beachball is available for free for non-commercial use from
> <a href="https://pngwing.com">PNGWing</a>.
So the file asahi/asahi.png is CC-BY-SA-4.0, which is OK since it’s allowed for content in Fedora. In fact, it’s a more suitable license than GPL-3.0-or-later for PNG files. This needs to be documented and needs to appear in the License field.
On the other hand, asahi/beachball.png is really problematic. Besides the fact that the exact license terms are not really specified, any license that is “non-commercial” or includes other field-of-use restrictions is nonfree and is not-allowed in Fedora. This file must not even be included in source RPMs.
You might consider raising the issue with upstream, as they might not have realized the impact of using this image. It would be pretty easy for someone to craft a broadly similar but original spinner image and contribute it under an appropriate, recognized license.
At a glance, the package looks broadly reasonable, if the license issues can be resolved.
Thank you, I've filed https://github.com/AsahiLinux/asahi-plymouth/issues/1 for the license issue. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/asahi-plymouth/asahi-plymouth.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/asahi-plymouth/asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.fc43.src.rpm Changelog: - Update to new upstream release that drops the legally problematic asahi/beachball.png - Update license tag I confirmed that the problematic asahi/beachball.png is not present in the latest submission, and the License field now correctly reflects all documented licenses in the source. I did not find any other issues. The package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes (no change reqired) ===== - It would be fine to drop the explicit “BuildRequires: coreutils” since there are probably no packages in Fedora that could be built without coureutils. (Even buildroot policy scripts will always require coreutils.) From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#buildrequires, “You MAY assume that enough of an environment exists for RPM to function, to build packages and execute basic shell scripts, but you SHOULD NOT assume any other packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the buildroot by the build system can change over time.” However, the BuildRequires on coreutils is correct and isn’t hurting anything, so you are free to ignore this note and leave it in the spec file. ===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2369536-asahi-plymouth/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1122 bytes in 1 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). [?]: 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. Upstream provides no tests, which is reasonable given the nature of the package. [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: plymouth-theme-asahi-0.2-1.fc43.noarch.rpm asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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/tmpxwrx7x9q')] checks: 32, packages: 2 asahi-plymouth.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AsahiLinux/asahi-plymouth/archive/0.2/asahi-plymouth-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9babbffb05f6039f232c328593d6342271894dfce6c205a4d6ea51e30001552d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9babbffb05f6039f232c328593d6342271894dfce6c205a4d6ea51e30001552d Requires -------- plymouth-theme-asahi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): plymouth Provides -------- plymouth-theme-asahi: asahi-plymouth plymouth-theme-asahi Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369536 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Java, Haskell, Perl, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/asahi-plymouth FEDORA-2025-9476517cb1 (asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9476517cb1 FEDORA-2025-9476517cb1 (asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2025-4dab5ecfc2 (asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4dab5ecfc2 FEDORA-2025-6e6c8fb06d (asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6e6c8fb06d FEDORA-EPEL-2025-40bbed9f23 (asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-40bbed9f23 FEDORA-2025-4dab5ecfc2 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-4dab5ecfc2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4dab5ecfc2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2025-40bbed9f23 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-40bbed9f23 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2025-6e6c8fb06d has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-6e6c8fb06d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6e6c8fb06d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2025-4dab5ecfc2 (asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2025-6e6c8fb06d (asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2025-40bbed9f23 (asahi-plymouth-0.2-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |