Bug 2209858 - Review Request: timg - A terminal image and video viewer
Summary: Review Request: timg - A terminal image and video viewer
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/hzeller/timg
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2222844 2222846 2227397
Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-05-25 05:58 UTC by Ryan
Modified: 2024-04-11 18:33 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: timg-1.6.0-4.fc41
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-04-11 18:33:19 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
fedora: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6129269 to 6357988 (2.69 KB, patch)
2023-08-31 03:53 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6357988 to 6672256 (1.23 KB, patch)
2023-11-21 03:49 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6672256 to 6704084 (314 bytes, patch)
2023-11-29 03:19 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6704084 to 6960222 (975 bytes, patch)
2024-01-26 09:30 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6960222 to 7131942 (2.91 KB, patch)
2024-03-10 16:53 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7131942 to 7141433 (839 bytes, patch)
2024-03-12 08:05 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Ryan 2023-05-25 05:58:36 UTC
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ErrorNoInternet/rpm-specs/main/timg/timg.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/fedora-38-x86_64/05952193-timg/timg-1.4.5-2.fc38.src.rpm
Description: A user-friendly viewer that uses 24-Bit color capabilities and unicode character blocks to display images, animations and videos in the terminal
Fedora Account System Username: errornointernet

COPR URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/errornointernet/timg/

Sorry for any mistakes made, this is my first package.
I also need a sponsor.

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2023-06-30 08:55:38 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6129269
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209858-timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06129269-timg/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 3 Petr Menšík 2023-07-08 09:34:06 UTC
I would recommend splitting BuildRequires: on multiple lines. Single line over 200 characters is not nice.

Similarly, %description should contain new lines and description with reasonably short lines. Common legacy value is 80 characters per line. A bit more may make sense on modern server, but 120 would be limit even there. GUI tools obtain information from AppStream files, but rpm -q and dnf info present them as preformatted by the author.

in %build phase, %cmake has to be used. It provides default build flags to package build.

Use %cmake_build and %cmake_install to handle created subdirectory. Own creation of build directory is not necessary, rpm macros will handle that.

I would recommend (optional) to use nicer source archives:
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

when spectool -g *.spec is used to fetch them, they are named as timg-1.4.5.tar.gz that way.

Comment 4 Ryan 2023-07-08 11:16:46 UTC
Hello,

Thanks for the recommendations :)
Here's the full list of changes I've made:

1. Included all the licenses in all the files (Fedora Review)
2. Used `%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz` as the source
3. Split BuildRequires onto multiple lines
4. Renamed "g++" dependency to "gcc-c++" (Fedora Review)
5. Split description into shorter lines
6. %build now only contains 2 lines, %cmake and %cmake_build
7. %install now only contains 1 line, %cmake_install

New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06151676-timg/timg.spec
New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06151676-timg/timg-1.4.5-5.fc39.src.rpm

Comment 5 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2023-07-13 18:56:33 UTC
> License: GPL-2.0 AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT
The first item here should be "GPL-2.0-only".
https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-only.html

> %files
> %{_mandir}/man1/timg.1.gz
Do not assume man pages will be gzipped. Use a wildcard that can match any compression method (including none).
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages

Another thing is that the upstream repository bundles some third party libraries:
- third_party/stb
- third_party/qoi
Bundling libraries in generally discouraged in Fedora.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling

Upstream CMakeLists seem to support using system-provided versions of these libraries.
stb is available in Fedora as a separate package - you can add "BuildRequires: stb_image-devel stb_image_resize-devel".
For qoi, you'd need to either create a new package and submit it for review, or add "Provides: bundled(qoi)".

Comment 6 Ryan 2023-07-14 04:27:10 UTC
Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it.

Current changes:
- `GPL-2.0` -> `GPL-2.0-only`
- `timg.1.gz` -> `timg.1*`
- `BuildRequires: zlib-devel` -> `BuildRequires: libdeflate-devel` (upstream change)
- +`BuildRequires: stb_image-devel stb_image_resize-devel`

> For qoi, you'd need to either create a new package and submit it for review, or add "Provides: bundled(qoi)".
I'll submit qoi as a new package.

I'm assuming I should put a `rm -rf third_party` after `%autosetup` in `%prep`?

v1.5.0 introduced sixel support, but libsixel is not yet packaged in Fedora (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772).
So I guess I'll be packaging that too? I'm not sure how exactly though, do I submit a new bug, or "take over" existing one?

Comment 8 Ryan 2023-07-29 06:39:10 UTC
Changes:
- Bumped version to 1.5.1
- Removed third_party/stb (uses Fedora-provided package now)
- Disabled libsixel support for now (libsixel isn't in the Fedora repositories yet)

libsixel review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2227397

New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06221733-timg/timg.spec
New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06221733-timg/timg-1.5.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2023-08-31 03:53:20 UTC
Created attachment 1986230 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6129269 to 6357988

Comment 11 Fedora Review Service 2023-08-31 03:53:23 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6357988
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209858-timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06357988-timg/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 12 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2023-11-14 12:43:09 UTC
Both qoi and libsixel have been approved and are now available in Rawhide.
Can you update the spec file with libsixel support and reupload the spec & srpm?

Comment 14 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-21 03:49:35 UTC
Created attachment 2000625 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6357988 to 6672256

Comment 15 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-21 03:49:38 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6672256
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209858-timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06672256-timg/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 17 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-29 03:19:58 UTC
Created attachment 2001919 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6672256 to 6704084

Comment 18 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-29 03:20:01 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6704084
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209858-timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06704084-timg/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 20 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-26 09:30:23 UTC
Created attachment 2010691 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6704084 to 6960222

Comment 21 Fedora Review Service 2024-01-26 09:30:26 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6960222
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209858-timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06960222-timg/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 22 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2024-03-09 12:10:38 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated


===== Issues =====

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

     The license field in the spec is:
     "GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT".
     timg sources seem subject to GPL-2.0-only. The program uses some
     header-only libraries: qoi (MIT) and stb_image (MIT OR Unlicence).
     Where does the "GPL-2.0-or-later" part come from?

[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.

     Please add a comment describing the licensing breakdown.

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

     * timg.src: E: spelling-error ('unicode', '%description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode')
     "Unicode" should be capitalised.

     * timg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.2-2 ['1.6.0-1.fc41', '1.6.0-1']
     This message seems to be caused by the lack of a changelog entry for 1.6.0-1.


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

C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[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 27742 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
     Link to successful scratch build in koji:
     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114708433
[-]: %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: 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: timg-1.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          timg-debuginfo-1.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          timg-debugsource-1.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          timg-1.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
======================== rpmlint session starts =======================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpwtvkx88w')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

timg.src: E: spelling-error ('unicode', '%description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code')
timg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unicode', '%description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code')
timg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.2-2 ['1.6.0-1.fc41', '1.6.0-1']
====== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s ======




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: timg-debuginfo-1.6.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
============== rpmlint session starts =============
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp3jb6qx6d')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

======= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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
checks: 32, packages: 3

timg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unicode', '%description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code')
timg.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.5.2-2 ['1.6.0-1.fc41', '1.6.0-1']
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/hzeller/timg/archive/v1.6.0/timg-1.6.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9e1b99b4eaed82297ad2ebbde02e3781775e3bba6d3e298d7598be5f4e1c49af
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9e1b99b4eaed82297ad2ebbde02e3781775e3bba6d3e298d7598be5f4e1c49af


Requires
--------
timg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libGraphicsMagick++-Q16.so.12()(64bit)
    libGraphicsMagick-Q16.so.3()(64bit)
    libavcodec.so.60()(64bit)
    libavcodec.so.60(LIBAVCODEC_60)(64bit)
    libavdevice.so.60()(64bit)
    libavdevice.so.60(LIBAVDEVICE_60)(64bit)
    libavformat.so.60()(64bit)
    libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit)
    libavutil.so.58()(64bit)
    libavutil.so.58(LIBAVUTIL_58)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libdeflate.so.0()(64bit)
    libexif.so.12()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpoppler-glib.so.8()(64bit)
    librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit)
    libsixel.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libswscale.so.7()(64bit)
    libswscale.so.7(LIBSWSCALE_7)(64bit)
    libturbojpeg.so.0()(64bit)
    libturbojpeg.so.0(TURBOJPEG_1.0)(64bit)
    libturbojpeg.so.0(TURBOJPEG_1.2)(64bit)
    libturbojpeg.so.0(TURBOJPEG_1.4)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

timg-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

timg-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
timg:
    timg
    timg(x86-64)

timg-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    timg-debuginfo
    timg-debuginfo(x86-64)

timg-debugsource:
    timg-debugsource
    timg-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2209858
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, R, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 23 Ryan 2024-03-10 04:19:23 UTC
Fixed :)

Not completely sure about the licensing though, but we are completely
removing third_party/ so I guess we could just put GPL-2.0-only in the
license field?

New .spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07129592-timg/timg.spec
New .srpm URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/errornointernet/timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07129592-timg/timg-1.6.0-2.fc41.src.rpm

Comment 24 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-10 16:53:47 UTC
Created attachment 2020989 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6960222 to 7131942

Comment 25 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-10 16:53:50 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7131942
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209858-timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07131942-timg/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 26 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2024-03-11 10:56:51 UTC
> Not completely sure about the licensing though, but we are completely
> removing third_party/ so I guess we could just put GPL-2.0-only in the
> license field?
Personally I'd argue that, since these are header-only libraries that are,
effectively, statically-linked into the executable, it does not matter
whether we're using the bundled versions from the third_party/ directory,
or the ones provided by Fedora packages - their licences should still
be included in the tag.

Comment 28 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-12 08:05:25 UTC
Created attachment 2021207 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7131942 to 7141433

Comment 29 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-12 08:05:27 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7141433
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209858-timg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07141433-timg/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 30 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2024-03-17 16:07:05 UTC
> License: GPL-2.0-only AND MIT
> # The following are under different terms.
> #
> # - third_party/qoi is MIT
> # - third_party/stb is MIT OR Unlicense
This should be "GPL-2.0-only AND MIT AND (MIT OR Unlicense)".
Please use the full license list here; do not try to simplify it by calculating the "effective license".
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis

Comment 32 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2024-03-18 06:26:14 UTC
LGTM. Package approved.

Comment 33 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-03-20 03:08:18 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/timg

Comment 34 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2024-04-11 18:33:19 UTC
Closing this as the package has been successfully imported and built for Rawhide.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2423417


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