Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wwl/wwl.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wwl/wwl-1.3-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: This program combines two handy hamradio Maindensquare programs into one. When used as locator, it will take the Maindenhead square on the command line and write it back out as lat / long. When used as wwl, it will calculate distance and azimuth between the two Maidenhead squares given. If only four characters of the Maidenhead square is given, this program will auto fill in the missing two chars with 'AA'. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
I cannot see license identified listed on <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main>. Also it seems there is no reply on the legal list. Is this package ready for the review?
I can see the discussion on the list now. (I experiences an hickup in the JS fetch). It would be great if rfontana updated the list of the approved licenses.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/eam/workspace/wwl/bz1881370/wwl/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [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. [-]: %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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: wwl-1.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wwl-debuginfo-1.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wwl-debugsource-1.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wwl-1.3-1.fc34.src.rpm wwl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hamradio -> ham radio, ham-radio, radiogram wwl.x86_64: W: invalid-license Semi-Permissive wwl.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/wwl.1.gz wwl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Semi-Permissive wwl-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license Semi-Permissive wwl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hamradio -> ham radio, ham-radio, radiogram wwl.src: W: invalid-license Semi-Permissive 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wwl-debuginfo-1.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm wwl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Semi-Permissive 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name wwl-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name wwl 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. (none): E: no installed packages by name wwl-debugsource Source checksums ---------------- http://www.db.net/downloads/wwl+db-1.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : db4d78d9d36e387d7c714064bc9948c6105c017b32a977ebb27ae9b46ec10773 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db4d78d9d36e387d7c714064bc9948c6105c017b32a977ebb27ae9b46ec10773 Requires -------- wwl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wwl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wwl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wwl: wwl wwl(x86-64) wwl-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wwl-debuginfo wwl-debuginfo(x86-64) wwl-debugsource: wwl-debugsource wwl-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn wwl-1.3-1.fc31.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, fonts, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Notes: - [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I think it's fine in this case since there is only one source file, which contains license information. - Please pay attention to rpmlint output. wwl.x86_64: W: invalid-license Semi-Permissive should be fine wwl.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/wwl.1.gz should be fixed wwl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hamradio -> ham radio, ham-radio, radiogram should be fine if you think this is the correct way to spell it (none): E: no installed packages by name wwl Not sure about this one. Rather looks like the fedora-review tool problem than the package itself
(In reply to aegorenk from comment #4) Thanks for the review. > Notes: > > - [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > I think it's fine in this case since there is only one source file, which > contains license information. > > - Please pay attention to rpmlint output. > > wwl.x86_64: W: invalid-license Semi-Permissive > should be fine > I am ready to rename the license if the fedora-legal will come up with some different name. > wwl.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/wwl.1.gz > should be fixed > It should be fixed now. > wwl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hamradio -> ham radio, > ham-radio, radiogram > should be fine if you think this is the correct way to spell it > Fixed. I took the original description from the upstream, I think "ham radio" is better. > (none): E: no installed packages by name wwl > Not sure about this one. Rather looks like the fedora-review tool problem > than the package itself > Probably. Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wwl/wwl.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wwl/wwl-1.3-2.fc31.src.rpm
Approved.
Thanks.(In reply to aegorenk from comment #6) > Approved. Thanks.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wwl
FEDORA-2020-b7dd117ec2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b7dd117ec2
FEDORA-2020-7ce8f17663 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7ce8f17663
FEDORA-2020-d78f66a05a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d78f66a05a
FEDORA-2020-b7dd117ec2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-b7dd117ec2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b7dd117ec2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-7ce8f17663 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7ce8f17663 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7ce8f17663 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-d78f66a05a has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d78f66a05a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d78f66a05a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
This package does not meet Fedora packaging guidelines, because the "Semi-Permissive" license identifier is not on the Fedora licensing list <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main>.
FEDORA-2020-b7dd117ec2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-7ce8f17663 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-d78f66a05a has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.