Spec URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda.spec SRPM URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda-1.5.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Tilda is a Linux terminal taking after the likeness of many classic terminals from first person shooter games, Quake, Doom and Half-Life (to name a few), where the terminal has no border and is hidden from the desktop until a key is pressed. Fedora Account System Username: hannes This is a re-review to get tilda unretired in the master and f32 branches of fedora. In order to download the sources from github please use wget, so that the naming of the resulting tar.gz, matches the name in the spec-file. Upstream added a fix to avoid a direct crash at startup on Wayland and thus I would like to re add it to the newer branches of fedora.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Bundled libraries! I've found: tomboykeybinder.c/.h from tomboy, xerror.c/.h from openbox, eggaccelerators.c/.h from... no idea! They should at least be declared. - Missing license for bundled libraries (MIT) and proper breakdown license (GPLv2 and MIT). ===== 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. [!]: 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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or later)". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lyes/Documents/reviews/1830220-tilda/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 5 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]: 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]: 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: 1.5.1 released (but it was only ~10 hours ago :P). [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tilda-1.5.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm tilda-debuginfo-1.5.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm tilda-debugsource-1.5.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm tilda-1.5.0-1.fc33.src.rpm tilda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tilda 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tilda-debuginfo-1.5.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- tilda-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://github.com/lanoxx/tilda <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> tilda.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://github.com/lanoxx/tilda <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> tilda.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tilda tilda-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://github.com/lanoxx/tilda <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Thank you for the review. I've opened an upstream ticket regarding the two bundled libraries and will follow up on the issue as soon as I get some answers. If I understand correctly, the bundled libraries are the reason for the additional MIT license, correct? I've now also updated the package to the latest version 1.5.1: Spec URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda.spec SRPM URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda-1.5.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44090953 And the upstream issue is at https://github.com/lanoxx/tilda/issues/416 Thanks hannes
Hello! In this section of the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling > All packages whose upstreams have no mechanism to build against system > libraries MAY opt to carry bundled libraries, but if they do, they MUST > include an indication of what they bundle. This provides a mechanism for > locating libraries with bundled code which can, for example, assist in > locating packages which may have particular security vulnerabilities. > > To indicate an instance of bundling, first determine the name and version of > the bundled library: > > - If the bundled package also exists separately in the distribution, use the > name of that package. Otherwise consult the Naming Guidelines to determine an > appropriate name for the library as if it were entering the distribution as a > separate package. > > - Use the Versioning Guidelines to determine an appropriate version for the > library, if possible. If the library has been forked from an upstream, use the > upstream version that was most recently merged in or rebased onto, or the version > the original library carried at the time of the fork. > > Then at an appropriate place in your spec, add Provides: bundled(<libname>) = <version> > where <libname> and <version> are the name and version you determined above. If it > was not possible to determine a version, use Provides: bundled(<libname>) instead. > > In addition to indicating bundling in this manner, packages whose upstreams have no > mechanism to build against system libraries must be contacted publicly about a path to > supporting system libraries. If upstream refuses, this must be recorded in the spec file, > either in comments placed adjacent to the Provides: above, or in an additional file > checked into the SCM and referenced by a comment placed adjacent to the Provides: above. So, a "Provide" for each bundled libraries and the addition of the MIT License (tomboykeybinder.c) with a comment indicating the license of each bundled libraries is enough to get the package approved ;)!
Ok, did just that and I hope I didn't forget anything. Didn't increase the release tag, since no proper build occured. Spec URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda.spec SRPM URL: https://hannes.fedorapeople.org/tilda-1.5.1-1.fc31.src.rpm rpmlint tilda.spec tilda.spec:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(eggaccelerators) tilda.spec:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(xerror) tilda.spec:27: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(tomboykeybinder) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Thank you for that! Package approved!
Thanks for the quick review, requested the necessary stuff from release engineering and I hope it will be back in fedora 32 soon. :-)
Closing as this seems to be resolved.