Description: cc65 is a complete cross development package for 65(C)02 systems, including a powerful macro assembler, a C compiler, linker, librarian and several other tools. cc65 has C and runtime library support for many of the old 6502 machines, including - the following Commodore machines: - VIC20 - C16/C116 and Plus/4 - C64 - C128 - CBM 510 (aka P500) - the 600/700 family - newer PET machines (not 2001). - the Apple ]\[+ and successors. - the Atari 8 bit machines. - the Atari 2600 console. - the Atari 5200 console. - GEOS for the C64, C128 and Apple //e. - the Bit Corporation Gamate console. - the NEC PC-Engine (aka TurboGrafx-16) console. - the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) console. - the Watara Supervision console. - the VTech Creativision console. - the Oric Atmos. - the Oric Telestrat. - the Lynx console. - the Ohio Scientific Challenger 1P. Issues: fedora-review shows no obvious issues. rpmlint just complains about missing manpages. FAS-User: besser82 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65-2.18-0.1.fc31.src.rpm Thanks for review in advance!
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35446219
Temporary COPR for testing: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/besser82/cc65/
Updated package: Changelog: * Sun Jun 09 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.2 - Add downstream patch to undefine a macro mangling version string * Sat Jun 08 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.1 - Initial rpm release (#1718684) Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35446545 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65-2.18-0.2.fc31.src.rpm
Updated package: Changelog: * Mon Jun 10 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.3 - Adapt BUILD_ID to be architecture independent - Drop Patches 1001 and 2000 as they not needed anymore * Sun Jun 09 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.2 - Add downstream patch to undefine a macro mangling version string * Sat Jun 08 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.1 - Initial rpm release (#1718684) Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35452016 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65-2.18-0.3.fc31.src.rpm
Updated package: Changelog: * Mon Jun 10 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.4 - Update Patch1000 Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35463149 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65-2.18-0.4.fc31.src.rpm
Updated package: Changelog: * Tue Jun 11 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.5 - Fix use of a macro - Remove hiphen separator from binaries in utils package - Fix an entry in %%changelog * Mon Jun 10 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.4 - Update Patch1000 Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35479761 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65-2.18-0.5.fc31.src.rpm
Has the licensing issue been resolved with this new version? IIRC there was one source file not free enough for Fedora.
From what I can see nothing changed for https://github.com/cc65/cc65/blob/master/src/cc65/expr.c, there should be details from the past either in a thread on legal list or in an old review bug or in the rpmfusion review. Yes, it should be this single file without the zlib license that blocks inclusion.
- Don't use %{__install} %{__mv} %{__mkdir_p} %{__make} etc., these macros don't bring anything useful. Use regular commands. - Shouldn't the devel package Requires the main package? Package 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng license", "zlib/libpng license", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 2250 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cc65/review- cc65/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files. [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cc65-devel , cc65-utils [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: cc65-2.18-0.5.fc31.x86_64.rpm cc65-devel-2.18-0.5.fc31.noarch.rpm cc65-doc-2.18-0.5.fc31.noarch.rpm cc65-utils-2.18-0.5.fc31.x86_64.rpm cc65-debuginfo-2.18-0.5.fc31.x86_64.rpm cc65-debugsource-2.18-0.5.fc31.x86_64.rpm cc65-2.18-0.5.fc31.src.rpm cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ar65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ca65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cc65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chrcvt65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cl65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary co65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary da65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grc65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary od65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sim65 cc65.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sp65 cc65-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ca65html cc65-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cc65ataricvt cc65-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cc65cbmcvt cc65-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cc65deflater cc65-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cc65gamate-fixcart 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.
Blocking FE-Legal, AFAIK expr.c isn't covered by the zlib license.
the original thread from legal - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/BGIWJ3FJRNE4TVDCA7S45Q5IALPMELBE/
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #8) > From what I can see nothing changed for > https://github.com/cc65/cc65/blob/master/src/cc65/expr.c, there should be > details from the past either in a thread on legal list or in an old review > bug or in the rpmfusion review. Yes, it should be this single file without > the zlib license that blocks inclusion. (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #10) > Blocking FE-Legal, AFAIK expr.c isn't covered by the zlib license. Why wouldn't it be? It's made by the same developer who has included a header in most files, except this one. /*****************************************************************************/ /* */ /* expr.c */ /* */ /* Expression evaluation for the ld65 linker */ /* */ /* */ /* */ /* (C) 1998-2012, Ullrich von Bassewitz */ /* Roemerstrasse 52 */ /* D-70794 Filderstadt */ /* EMail: uz */ /* */ /* */ /* This software is provided 'as-is', without any expressed or implied */ /* warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages */ /* arising from the use of this software. */ /* */ /* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, */ /* including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it */ /* freely, subject to the following restrictions: */ /* */ /* 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not */ /* claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software */ /* in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be */ /* appreciated but is not required. */ /* 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not */ /* be misrepresented as being the original software. */ /* 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source */ /* distribution. */ /* */ /*****************************************************************************/ We don't require all source files to have proper headers with the license included.
There is a long history why cc65 wasn't permitted in Fedora because of licensing issues. cc65/expr.c has no copyright info at all and I think Ullrich von Bassewitz wasn't the original author of the file and this single file caused all the issues. So unless something changed regarding the licensing, we should avoid to include it in Fedora.
The problematic parts would be this: https://github.com/cc65/cc65/blob/master/src/cc65/copyleft.jrd https://github.com/cc65/cc65/blob/master/doc/cc65.sgml#L1561 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -*- Mode: Text -*- This is the copyright notice for RA65, LINK65, LIBR65, and other Atari 8-bit programs. Said programs are Copyright 1989, by John R. Dunning. All rights reserved, with the following exceptions: Anyone may copy or redistribute these programs, provided that: 1: You don't charge anything for the copy. It is permissable to charge a nominal fee for media, etc. 2: All source code and documentation for the programs is made available as part of the distribution. 3: This copyright notice is preserved verbatim, and included in the distribution. You are allowed to modify these programs, and redistribute the modified versions, provided that the modifications are clearly noted. There is NO WARRANTY with this software, it comes as is, and is distributed in the hope that it may be useful. This copyright notice applies to any program which contains this text, or the refers to this file. This copyright notice is based on the one published by the Free Software Foundation, sometimes known as the GNU project. The idea is the same as theirs, ie the software is free, and is intended to stay that way. Everybody has the right to copy, modify, and re- distribute this software. Nobody has the right to prevent anyone else from copying, modifying or redistributing it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- </verb></tscreen> Small parts of the compiler (parts of the preprocessor and main parser) are still covered by this copyright. The main portion is covered by the usual cc65 license, which reads: This software is provided 'as-is', without any expressed or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: <enum> <item> The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. <item> Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. <item> This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. </enum>
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #9) > - Don't use %{__install} %{__mv} %{__mkdir_p} %{__make} etc., these macros > don't bring anything useful. Use regular commands. It's matter of preference, I think. > - Shouldn't the devel package Requires the main package? The devel pacakge is noarch and thus has Requires: `%{name} = %{version}-%{release}`. IT simply doesn't carry the %{?_isa} macro.
Debian to the rescue: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=714058#30 Message #30 received at 714058.org (full text, mbox, reply): From: jrd To: 714058.org Cc: <glaubitz.de>,<stapelberg>,<debian-cc65.net> Subject: CC65 licensing Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:52:47 -0400 Hi everyone. I'm John Dunning. I was the guy who produced CC65 for the Atari 800 family of machines many years ago. I was contacted by Mr. Glaubitz about licensing status of the software. I hereby declare my approval for putting CC65 and its related tools and utilities under GPL-2. As an aside, I never had any intent of making money off it or it being proprietary. I built it because I was sick of not having tools which could compile to machine code, which would run on the platform. CC65 was the only compiler I ever saw for that machine which could compile itself. I had a lot of fun with it, before finally giving up the Ataris and moving on to bigger things. I'm tickled that it's still in use. I'd like it to continue to be freely available and for the community to have fun with it and keep getting good use out of it.
Message #55 received at 714058.org (full text, mbox, reply): From: jrd To: 714058.org Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz.de> Subject: CC65 licensing Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Hi all. I gather that the preference is to license CC65 and associated technologies under the zlib license. I hereby give my approval for any software written by me as part of CC65 and associated technologies under the zlib license.
Thanks for digging it up, this clears my concerns.
Many thanks for digging up the link. @Dan Horák Can we lift FE-LEGAL, then, and proceed?
Updated package: Changelog: * Tue Jun 11 2019 Björn Esser <besser82> - 2.18-0.6 - Add a link for clarifying the actual license - Remove the %%{name} prefix from binaries in the utils package and suffix them with 65 for a more uniform experience - Add a few comments - Optimize some global definitions to be more vasatile Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35486187 Urls: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/cc65-2.18-0.6.fc31.src.rpm
(In reply to Björn 'besser82' Esser from comment #19) > Many thanks for digging up the link. > > @Dan Horák Can we lift FE-LEGAL, then, and proceed? I think we can.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cc65
FEDORA-2019-d45997d037 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d45997d037
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-af1858df1c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-af1858df1c
FEDORA-2019-54c8fbdce0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-54c8fbdce0
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #21) > (In reply to Björn 'besser82' Esser from comment #19) > > Many thanks for digging up the link. > > > > @Dan Horák Can we lift FE-LEGAL, then, and proceed? > > I think we can. Since you wanted bring this into Fedora a long time ago, I've added you as a comaintainer in pagure.
cc65-2.18-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-54c8fbdce0
cc65-2.18-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d45997d037
cc65-2.18-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-af1858df1c
cc65-2.18-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9e046a46a0
(In reply to Björn 'besser82' Esser from comment #26) > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #21) > > (In reply to Björn 'besser82' Esser from comment #19) > > > Many thanks for digging up the link. > > > > > > @Dan Horák Can we lift FE-LEGAL, then, and proceed? > > > > I think we can. > > Since you wanted bring this into Fedora a long time ago, I've added you as a > comaintainer in pagure. no objections, although I haven't played with my Atari for some time :-)
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9e046a46a0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9e046a46a0
cc65-2.18-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-54c8fbdce0
cc65-2.18-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d45997d037
cc65-2.18-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-af1858df1c
cc65-2.18-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9e046a46a0
cc65-2.18-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
cc65-2.18-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-af1858df1c
cc65-2.18-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9e046a46a0
cc65-2.18-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
cc65-2.18-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
cc65-2.18-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.