Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/celestia/celestia-data.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/celestia/celestia-data-1.7.0~20221202bc8208e-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: This package provides the required data files, spacecraft models and planet textures for Celestia to work. Fedora Account System Username: mattia This will be needed to update celestia to the latest snapshot, as upstream has splitted data in its own repository. Be advised that: - it will need to be released altogether with the main program update, since the celestia version available in Fedora embeds data files - I've requested a license review for the JPL license of some models/textures); if rejected I can simply purge the sources from these files, but I'm confident that it will be accepted (in the past the license was reviewed by Callaway)
I'm going to lift the FE-Legal block, since the JPL license has been accepted by SPDX upstream, so it will soon be added to the Fedora accepted licenses. Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/celestia/celestia-data.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/celestia/celestia-data-1.7.0~20230123bbc3542-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: This package provides the required data files, spacecraft models and planet textures for Celestia to work. Fedora Account System Username: mattia
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5330867 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2150240-celestia-data/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05330867-celestia-data/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== MUST items ===== 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 494 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2150240-celestia- data/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/celestia/data(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/cassini(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/cassini/data(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/cassini/models(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/galileo(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/galileo/data(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/galileo/models(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/hubble(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/hubble/models(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/iss(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/iss/models(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/iss/textures(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/iss/textures/medres(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/mir(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/extras- standard/mir/models(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/models(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/textures(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/textures/hires(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/textures/lores(celestia), /usr/share/celestia/textures/medres(celestia) [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. [ ]: 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]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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. [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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 3.5 starting (python version = 3.11.1, NVR = mock-3.5-2.fc38)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.5 INFO: Mock Version: 3.5 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.5 INFO: Mock Version: 3.5 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/celestia-data-1.7.0~20230123bbc3542-1.fc38.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 7b5b988ca18a42e087759f3405cfc70a -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.z75u50y_:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/ --releasever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/celestia-data-1.7.0~20230123bbc3542-1.fc38.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: celestia-data-1.7.0~20230123bbc3542-1.fc38.noarch.rpm celestia-data-1.7.0~20230123bbc3542-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5fedaasj')] checks: 31, packages: 2 celestia-data.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided celestia celestia-data.noarch: W: invalid-license JPL-image celestia-data.src: W: invalid-license JPL-image celestia-data.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/celestia-data/COPYING celestia-data.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/celestia/models/S0.png /usr/share/celestia/models/E0.png 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 20.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/CelestiaProject/CelestiaContent/archive/bbc3542fa9716cdf121a0ff2395a7ee06a8036aa/CelestiaContent-bbc3542fa9716cdf121a0ff2395a7ee06a8036aa.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 673dcf2fbc67121e450d9b0890b1fab5eec4b8fd5ba6bc7ec33c083c650b97d8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 673dcf2fbc67121e450d9b0890b1fab5eec4b8fd5ba6bc7ec33c083c650b97d8 Requires -------- celestia-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): celestia Provides -------- celestia-data: celestia-data Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2150240 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, R, fonts, Python, C/C++, Perl, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH COMMENTS: a) Package does not seem to install correctly b) Repo name is CelestiaContent rather than celestia-data, though Debian file uses celestia-data
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3) > > COMMENTS: > a) Package does not seem to install correctly Yes, it is expected because of: Requires: celestia Obsoletes: celestia <= 1.6.3 In celestia 1.6.2 the data files were embedded in the main package, with 1.7 they are splitted in this other repository. I will release celestia-data in an update together with celestia 1.7 (which will also solve the problem of duplicate directories ownership detected by fedora-review). > b) Repo name is CelestiaContent rather than celestia-data, though Debian > file uses celestia-data I chose celestia-data to maintain the same name used in Debian. It is also common for Fedora packages that provide data to be named after <program>-data. I can however rename the new package to CelestiaContent if needed (also I don't like having mixed uppercase-lowercase names).
Is there an updated RPM of Celestia that can be used to do a build? For example celestia and celestia-data can be put in a temporary copr repository.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5) > Is there an updated RPM of Celestia that can be used to do a build? For > example celestia and celestia-data can be put in a temporary copr repository. Look in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mattia/Astronomy/builds/
Thanks it built https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5378433 There is one warning that may need to be fixed: celestia-data.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided celestia Checking license will end up at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ see https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/107
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #7) > There is one warning that may need to be fixed: > > celestia-data.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided celestia > I think that's correct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages "If a package supersedes/replaces an existing package without being a sufficiently compatible replacement as defined above, use only the Obsoletes: line from the above example." Requires: celestia Obsoletes: celestia <= 1.6.3 Will make sure that celestia-data is not installed without upgrading celestia to 1.7.
Seems ok. Just need assurance on the license.
Is this just about the JPL image license described here: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/107 ? If so, this has already been approved for Fedora. The only issue is that a TOML file for the license needs to be added to fedora-license-data.
License issue was closed, I think it is now ok to approve? Benson, is there any other fix needed?
I've reworked the way Requires/Obsoletes handles the upgrade path from older celestia version as suggested by yselkowitz in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/celestia/pull-request/1 Benson, do you want me to post an updated spec/srpm for a new review from you, or can we move on with this review? The JPL license is now in the list of Fedora approved content license, as well in SPDX approved license list.
Thanks. Can you post an update srpm or do a build at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mattia/Astronomy/builds/ ?
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mattia/Astronomy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05517384-celestia-data/celestia-data.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mattia/Astronomy/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05517384-celestia-data/celestia-data-1.7.0~20230223ffc806d-1.fc39.src.rpm Basically, the only thing that changed is the removal of "Obsoletes:" as the upgrade path will be handled in main celestia package. Everything else is the same.
Thanks. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/celestia-data
FEDORA-2023-361e30a2ff has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-361e30a2ff
FEDORA-2023-361e30a2ff has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.