Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/wrk.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/wrk-4.2.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: wrk is a modern HTTP benchmarking tool capable of generating significant load when run on a single multi-core CPU. It combines a multithreaded design with scalable event notification systems such as epoll and kqueue. An optional LuaJIT script can perform HTTP request generation, response processing, and custom reporting. Fedora Account System Username: jonathanspw
Should luajit and openssl be listed as required packages?
I don't believe it's required. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires $ rpm -q --requires wrk-4.2.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm |grep -E 'luajit|ssl' libluajit-5.1.so.2()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
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: [?]: 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/wrk/2116187-wrk/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [?]: 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 12 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 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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wg/wrk/archive/4.2.0/wrk-4.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e255f696bff6e329f5d19091da6b06164b8d59d62cb9e673625bdcd27fe7bdad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e255f696bff6e329f5d19091da6b06164b8d59d62cb9e673625bdcd27fe7bdad Requires -------- wrk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libluajit-5.1.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wrk-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wrk-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wrk: wrk wrk(x86-64) wrk-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wrk-debuginfo wrk-debuginfo(x86-64) wrk-debugsource: wrk-debugsource wrk-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2116187 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) The license file indicates modified Apache 2 license. Are the modifications compatible with Fedora packaging guidelines? b) In the spec file, should Openssl be listed for licensing requirements? If so, what about LuaJIT?
> Comments: > a) The license file indicates modified Apache 2 license. Are the > modifications compatible with Fedora packaging guidelines? Yes. The only change is this: https://github.com/wg/wrk/commit/db6da47fe3ee604d70304c8d10896f8349b972da and since no changes have been made to the source, this is definitely N/A thus no problem for Fedora. > b) In the spec file, should Openssl be listed for licensing requirements? If > so, what about LuaJIT? No. It's using system libs so that's already covered by their respective packages.
It did start for me in a F36 VM in Virtualbox
The license is not on the allowed licenses list: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ The change needs a review: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval/
I don't think the necessitates a legal review. The section that was added has no impact on what we're distributing or how a user can use it. We're distributing a binary, not source, and this section only applies to "substantial" changes to features or functionality. I'm happy to request a license review from legal but it seems like a waste of their time in this case since it seems so cut and dry and the language of the modification is very easy to comprehend.
It seems good to go through the process since other packages may make such changes and a uniform way of managing their inclusion is needed. It would be good if upstream used a standard license or created a license with their changes. It is unclear as to what a substantial change is. Modified BSD is available at https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause and is a reviewed open source approved license. If there is community consensus on a need for such changes, it would be good to have them easily adopted by other projects.
Since it's a new license, it needs legal review. Even if the part that's distinct from the Apache License 2.0 wouldn't have any practical impact on Fedora itself, Fedora applies standards for approval of licenses that are not limited to Fedora-specific compliance considerations. (For example, Fedora does not allow no-commercial-use licenses even though it could probably comply with at least some of those licenses.) As it happens, this license raises a bunch of issues, as noted: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/58#note_1071793951
Thank you for the feedback. I'm going to open an issue with upstream and get their thoughts on the issue of the license potentially preventing the package's inclusion to Fedora and see if they're willing to go back to regular Apache 2.0.
Based on the licensing, cannot approve. Maybe it is better to reopen this in future should the license be changed?
Yep I guess let's table it.