Bug 1876108 - Review Request: python-pyfiglet - Pure-python FIGlet implementation
Summary: Review Request: python-pyfiglet - Pure-python FIGlet implementation
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1876109 1876110
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2020-09-05 14:25 UTC by Lyes Saadi
Modified: 2022-09-15 00:45 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2020-09-05 16:49:14 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Lyes Saadi 2020-09-05 14:25:18 UTC
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/present/python-pyfiglet.spec
SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/present/python-pyfiglet-0.8.post1-1.fc32.src.rpm

Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lyessaadi/present/build/1650401/

pyfiglet is a full port of FIGlet (http://www.figlet.org/) into pure python. It
takes ASCII text and renders it in ASCII art fonts (like the title above, which
is the 'block' font).

Fedora Account System Username: lyessaadi

Comment 1 Andy Mender 2020-09-05 15:38:04 UTC
Package approved. Consider adding the tests from https://github.com/pwaller/pyfiglet/blob/master/pyfiglet/test.py under %check.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat
     License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "NTP License". 391 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Review: upstream doesn't provide pytest tests, but custom ones which 
     might be worth adding under %check:
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python3-pyfiglet-0.8.post1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
python3-pyfiglet.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python3-pyfiglet/figfont.txt
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(none): E: no installed packages by name python3-pyfiglet

Source checksums
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyfiglet/pyfiglet-0.8.post1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c6c2321755d09267b438ec7b936825a4910fec696292139e664ca8670e103639
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6c2321755d09267b438ec7b936825a4910fec696292139e664ca8670e103639

python3-pyfiglet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Comment 2 Lyes Saadi 2020-09-05 15:55:30 UTC
Thank you for the very quick review :)!

I will add the tests ;)!

Comment 3 Lyes Saadi 2020-09-05 16:49:14 UTC
Umm... I'm abandoning this review (as well as python-asciimatics and present) after discovering that EACH FIGLET FONT HAS A DIFFERENT LICENSE...

Comment 4 Lyes Saadi 2020-09-05 16:55:32 UTC
Sorry Andy Mender for having to close this even though you spent time reviewing it...

I should've checked before, but I somehow forgot it... It's just that those cases are so rare...

Hopefully, nothing was submitted to Fedora's repos yet -_-'...

Comment 5 Andy Mender 2020-09-05 17:08:30 UTC
No worries at all! I should've checked it on my end as well...

Comment 6 Lyes Saadi 2020-09-05 17:10:22 UTC
> Hopefully, nothing was submitted to Fedora's repos yet -_-'...

I meant "Fortunately" :P.

Comment 7 peter.brittain.os@gmail.com 2021-08-05 15:55:06 UTC
I just spotted this when searching for something related...  Are you aware that we tidied up the pyfiglet fonts to address distribution rights as of https://github.com/pwaller/pyfiglet/pull/61/files?

If there's anything else you need to address the font licences, do please let me know.

Comment 8 Lyes Saadi 2021-08-05 21:21:40 UTC
Hello :D!

I would like, first of all, to thank you for reaching out to us about that font issue. At the time, I didn't reach upstream for this issue because of how big the issue was, but in retrospect, I maybe should've since you seem to be ready to address this.

I am still interested in maintaining this package, and, since it already was approved, I'd be happy to maintain it in Fedora if all issues were solved, preferably with the agreement of the reviewer of this package review, Andy Mender.

> Are you aware that we tidied up the pyfiglet fonts to address distribution rights as of https://github.com/pwaller/pyfiglet/pull/61/files?

I was not aware of that, and even though it certainly is a good step, it is not enough in itself, as I also need to know and document into the Fedora spec file the License of each font, unless they are licensed under the main package's license.

Unfortunately, when looking at the package's history, the farthest I can go is to a zip file with no license...

I have opened an issue upstream #89, so the discussion can be continued there :)!

Comment 9 Andy Mender 2021-09-05 17:57:28 UTC
Changing status to ASSIGNED, since this wasn't fully approved yet.

Once the font issues are solved, I will have another look at this request :).

Comment 10 Lyes Saadi 2021-09-05 18:04:14 UTC
Thank you for taking this back!

I will produce a new version of the package soon with the new font system (as this was solved upstream recently), and I will be mailing Fedora Legal's mailing list about potential issues with the rest of the fonts!

Comment 11 Lyes Saadi 2021-10-23 18:00:42 UTC
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.spec
SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-0.8.post1-1.fc36.src.rpm

Finally updated it :D ! Sorry for being that late... Ran into a weird bug with pyproject. It's my first time dealing with it, so I hope I've respected the new Python Guidelines :) !

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77716901

Comment 12 Lyes Saadi 2021-10-23 18:22:09 UTC
Oops, forgot to update the License field!

Comment 13 Lyes Saadi 2021-10-23 19:21:38 UTC
Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet.spec
SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-pyfiglet/python-pyfiglet-0.8.post1-1.fc36.src.rpm

Done :)! Should we remove FE-legal, or do we need to consult them before? I will ask them anyway since I'm sending an e-mail right now to the legal mailing list about FIGlet font licensing for the other fonts.

Comment 15 peter.brittain.os@gmail.com 2022-04-18 16:06:14 UTC
Looks like the attempt to get all the fonts in has ground to a halt...  That said, we now have a package that builds with only the subset of fonts that have licenses that are compatible with Fedora.  Any reason we can't just add that now (and create a new issue if the legal trail ever gets resolved)?

Comment 16 Lyes Saadi 2022-04-18 16:10:46 UTC
No reason really. I'll try to ask fedora-legal again (maybe more directly on IRC/Matrix) at the end of the week (I'm a bit busy right now).

Comment 17 Richard Fontana 2022-07-26 04:14:04 UTC
FE-Legal block lifted. The assumption for now is that this is just a request to package the figlet fonts in the fonts-standard directory. I actually don't currently have an opinion on the fonts-contrib issue, just haven't looked into it sufficiently.

Comment 18 Lyes Saadi 2022-07-26 04:24:18 UTC
Thank you so much :D! This will indeed only package fonts-contrib! Andy Mender, are you still up to review this? (Otherwise, I'll just ask for a review swap to speed this up, since old packages rarely get reviews.)

Comment 19 Lyes Saadi 2022-08-15 21:45:14 UTC
Hello Andy :),

Are you still interested in reviewing this?

Comment 20 Package Review 2022-09-15 00:45:20 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.