Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/e-antic/e-antic.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/e-antic/e-antic-0.1.7-1.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: E-ANTIC is a C/C++ library to deal with real embedded number fields, built on top of ANTIC. Its aim is to have as fast as possible exact arithmetic operations and comparisons.
We have - https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/blob/master/COPYING : GPLv3+ (with "or later version claim") - https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/blob/master/COPYING.LESSER : LGPLv3 (without that claim) in this case, should we continue use a LGPLv3+, or mark it as GPLv3+ or LGPLv3, I am totally new to dealing with Licenses and don't know what to do in this case. I may take this not so quick due to setting up buildroot is so slow, tomorrow I will try it under a proxy.
(In reply to Qiyu Yan from comment #1) > We have > - https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/blob/master/COPYING : GPLv3+ > (with "or later version claim") > - https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/blob/master/COPYING.LESSER : LGPLv3 > (without that claim) > in this case, should we continue use a LGPLv3+, or mark it as GPLv3+ or > LGPLv3, I am totally new to dealing with Licenses and don't know what to do > in this case. Yes, the license situation is kind of confusing. Here is my understanding of it. - The actual text in COPYING and COPYING.LESSER does not matter (sort of). What matters is the text in the actual source files. - Some of the source files refer to LGPLv2+. For example, see poly_extra/has_real_root.c. - Some of the source files refer to LGPLv3+. For example, see renf_elem/clear.c. - Some of the source files refer to the FLINT license, which they claim is GPLv2+. For example, see e-antic/nf.h. - FLINT has clarified that its license is LGPLv2+, not GPLv2+. The latest release, which we have in Rawhide, has the updated license. The upstream for both FLINT and antic, wbhart, has clarified this in an issue where a user is confused about the antic license: https://github.com/wbhart/antic/issues/43. - The upstream for e-antic referred to the antic clarification when asked about the e-antic license: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/issues/100. That is the URL in the comment just above the License tag in e-antic.spec. From this, I conclude that all of the source files are licensed LGPLv2+, LGPLv3+, or with the FLINT license, which is LGPLv2+. The only way to combine LGPLv2+ and LGPLv3+ is to arrive at LGPLv3+, which is what I put in the License field. Whew! > I may take this not so quick due to setting up buildroot is so slow, > tomorrow I will try it under a proxy. Sure, no rush. Thank you for looking at this.
Upstream has released a new version. If you look in the NEWS file in this version, you will see that it claims the license is LGPLv3+. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/e-antic/e-antic.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/e-antic/e-antic-0.1.8-1.fc33.src.rpm
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]: 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. [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", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3.0 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yan/review/1862616-e-antic/licensecheck.txt # See https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/issues/100 [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools # link above inaccessable, but I think we can refer to https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/LT_005fINIT.html See below AutoTools part, but since this is not in the "MUST" part and seems to be an upstream issue, will it be possible to ignore this? [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: e-antic-0.1.8-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm e-antic-devel-0.1.8-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm e-antic-debuginfo-0.1.8-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm e-antic-debugsource-0.1.8-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm e-antic-0.1.8-1.fc33.src.rpm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: e-antic-debuginfo-0.1.8-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- e-antic-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> e-antic.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> e-antic-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> e-antic-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> # My proxy make those link check broken, just ignore this. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/archive/0.1.8/e-antic-0.1.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7c7c7693f86d8bb6d849d903cdb6796491d845a9fd79e8a3c9166edbf2436bc0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c7c7693f86d8bb6d849d903cdb6796491d845a9fd79e8a3c9166edbf2436bc0 Requires -------- e-antic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libarb.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libflint.so.14()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) e-antic-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): arb-devel(x86-64) e-antic(x86-64) flint-devel(x86-64) gmp-devel(x86-64) libeantic.so.0()(64bit) libeanticxx.so.0()(64bit) e-antic-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): e-antic-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- e-antic: e-antic e-antic(x86-64) libeantic.so.0()(64bit) libeanticxx.so.0()(64bit) e-antic-devel: e-antic-devel e-antic-devel(x86-64) e-antic-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) e-antic-debuginfo e-antic-debuginfo(x86-64) e-antic-debugsource: e-antic-debugsource e-antic-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: e-antic-0.1.8/configure.ac:11 # maybe patching e-antic-0.1.8/configure.ac according to link above will help, I think. Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L dep -b 1862616 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Python, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/yan/review/dep/antic-devel-0.2.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm /home/yan/review/dep/antic-0.2.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
Thank you for the review! The switch from AC_PROG_LIBTOOL to LT_INIT is not hard to do. I will ask upstream to make that change. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/e-antic/e-antic.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/e-antic/e-antic-0.1.8-2.fc33.src.rpm
Done, warning has gone, 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]: 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. [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", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3.0 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yan/review/1862616-e-antic/licensecheck.txt # See https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/issues/100 [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [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: e-antic-0.1.8-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm e-antic-devel-0.1.8-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm e-antic-debuginfo-0.1.8-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm e-antic-debugsource-0.1.8-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm e-antic-0.1.8-2.fc33.src.rpm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: e-antic-debuginfo-0.1.8-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- e-antic-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> e-antic-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> e-antic-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> e-antic.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/videlec/e-antic <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/videlec/e-antic/archive/0.1.8/e-antic-0.1.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7c7c7693f86d8bb6d849d903cdb6796491d845a9fd79e8a3c9166edbf2436bc0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c7c7693f86d8bb6d849d903cdb6796491d845a9fd79e8a3c9166edbf2436bc0 Requires -------- e-antic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libarb.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libflint.so.14()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) e-antic-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): arb-devel(x86-64) e-antic(x86-64) flint-devel(x86-64) gmp-devel(x86-64) libeantic.so.0()(64bit) libeanticxx.so.0()(64bit) e-antic-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): e-antic-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- e-antic: e-antic e-antic(x86-64) libeantic.so.0()(64bit) libeanticxx.so.0()(64bit) e-antic-devel: e-antic-devel e-antic-devel(x86-64) e-antic-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) e-antic-debuginfo e-antic-debuginfo(x86-64) e-antic-debugsource: e-antic-debugsource e-antic-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L dep -b 1862616 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, Ocaml, Java, fonts, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/yan/review/dep/antic-devel-0.2.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm /home/yan/review/dep/antic-0.2.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/e-antic
Built in Rawhide.