Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/libayatana-ido.spec SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/libayatana-ido-0.10.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Ayatana IDO provides custom GTK menu widgets for Ayatana System Indicators. Fedora Account System Username: principis PACKAGE-LICENSING file: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/libayatana-ido.PACKAGE-LICENSING
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6732792 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253579-libayatana-ido/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06732792-libayatana-ido/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.
1. license issue > # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING > License: GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND (GPL-3.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only) > mv COPYING.LGPL-2 COPYING.GPL-2 # https://github.com/AyatanaIndicators/ayatana-ido/pull/68 I am not very proficient in determining the correct license of the package. Anyways, I give my viewpoint. I think the license may be LGPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only. Can you explain clearly your thoughts on this? 2. enable the tests https://github.com/AyatanaIndicators/ayatana-ido/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt#L12
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #2) > 1. license issue > > > # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING > > License: GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND (GPL-3.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only) > > > mv COPYING.LGPL-2 COPYING.GPL-2 # https://github.com/AyatanaIndicators/ayatana-ido/pull/68 > > I am not very proficient in determining the correct license of the package. > Anyways, I give my viewpoint. I think the license may be LGPL-2.0-or-later > AND GPL-3.0-only. Can you explain clearly your thoughts on this? I'd say it's: GPL-3.0-only AND (LGPL-3.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only). Which files are GPL-2.0-only? > 2. enable the tests > > https://github.com/AyatanaIndicators/ayatana-ido/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt#L12 Enabling tests requires a bit more than just BuildRequires: gtest-devel and %cmake -DENABLE_TESTS=ON as they require a display and need to be run under Xvfb.
Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. (In reply to Felix Wang from comment #2) > I am not very proficient in determining the correct license of the package. > Anyways, I give my viewpoint. I think the license may be LGPL-2.0-or-later > AND GPL-3.0-only. Can you explain clearly your thoughts on this? The license tag should be an enumeration of all licenses found in the source code (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_basic_rule ). A useful tool to determine this is licensecheck. You can see the breakdown in the PACKAGE-LICENSING file. (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #3) > (In reply to Felix Wang from comment #2) > > 1. license issue > > > > > # For a breakdown of the licensing, see PACKAGE-LICENSING > > > License: GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND (GPL-3.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only) > > > > > mv COPYING.LGPL-2 COPYING.GPL-2 # https://github.com/AyatanaIndicators/ayatana-ido/pull/68 > > I'd say it's: GPL-3.0-only AND (LGPL-3.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only). > > Which files are GPL-2.0-only? The GPL-2.0-only is a remnant of me misinterpreting LGPL-2.0 as GPL-2.0... Thanks for noticing Felix and Dominik. `src/idotimeline.c` and `src/idotimeline.h` are LGPL-2.0-or-later. The correct license is thus "LGPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only AND (GPL-3.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only)" I've updated the PACKAGE-LICENSING and spec file accordingly. PACKAGE-LICENSING file: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/libayatana-ido.PACKAGE-LICENSING (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #3) > (In reply to Felix Wang from comment #2) > > 2. enable the tests > > > > https://github.com/AyatanaIndicators/ayatana-ido/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt#L12 > > Enabling tests requires a bit more than just > BuildRequires: gtest-devel and %cmake -DENABLE_TESTS=ON > as they require a display and need to be run under Xvfb. Enabled the tests using Xvfb. Thanks for the suggestion! Spec URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/libayatana-ido.spec SRPM URL: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/libayatana-ido-0.10.1-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 2016712 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6732792 to 7016311
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7016311 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253579-libayatana-ido/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07016311-libayatana-ido/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.
+ package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora: LGPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only AND (GPL-3.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only) + builds and installs OK + BR/P/R look correct + no scriptlets needed or present + rpmlint finds no big issue The clarification of license seems fine. Most of the package seems fine to me. A minor issue is that package name libayatana-ido-gtk3, instead of libayatana-ido. The -gtk3 suffix is recommended ? I have no more opinions on this package review. Do you have more comments, Dominik ? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/libayatana- ido/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2193 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libayatana-ido-gtk3 , libayatana-ido-gtk3-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libayatana-ido-gtk3-0.10.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libayatana-ido-gtk3-devel-0.10.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libayatana-ido-debugsource-0.10.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm libayatana-ido-0.10.1-1.fc39.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/tmpmnokb1_x')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libayatana-ido-gtk3-debuginfo-0.10.1-1.fc39.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/tmppjgyeadu')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "libayatana-ido-gtk3-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "libayatana-ido-gtk3". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "libayatana-ido-gtk3-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "libayatana-ido-debugsource". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 4 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AyatanaIndicators/ayatana-ido/archive/0.10.1/ayatana-ido-0.10.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 26187915a6f3402195e2c78d9e8a54549112a3cd05bb2fbe2059d3e78fc0e071 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 26187915a6f3402195e2c78d9e8a54549112a3cd05bb2fbe2059d3e78fc0e071 Requires -------- libayatana-ido-gtk3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libayatana-ido-gtk3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libayatana-ido-gtk3(x86-64) libayatana-ido3-0.4.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) libayatana-ido-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libayatana-ido-gtk3: libayatana-ido-gtk3 libayatana-ido-gtk3(x86-64) libayatana-ido3-0.4.so.0()(64bit) libayatana-ido-gtk3-devel: libayatana-ido-gtk3-devel libayatana-ido-gtk3-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libayatana-ido3-0.4) libayatana-ido-debugsource: libayatana-ido-debugsource libayatana-ido-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name libayatana-ido --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-39-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, R, Java, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #7) > A minor issue is that package name libayatana-ido-gtk3, instead of > libayatana-ido. The -gtk3 suffix is recommended ? I've doubted a lot about the naming. I tried to choose a convention that is clear to users and in line with other packages, but I'm open to suggestions! Debian uses the upstream naming of the library [0]. They append '3' for GTK3 version and omit it for the GTK2 version. libayatana-appindicator [1] is probably a better example. The old libappindicator [2] appends '-gtk3' for the GTK3 version (as I'm doing), but they omit it for the GTK2 version. I chose to always append the GTK version to make it clear to users which version it is, see libayatana-appindicator [3] for a complete example. [0]: https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/libayatana-ido3-0.4-0 [1]: https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=bookworm&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=ayatana-appindicator [2]: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/libappindicator/ [3]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253582
Ok, Thanks for your explanation for the name issue, it looks good to me. Approved.
Thanks for the review Felix!
FEDORA-2024-8a21715b13 (libayatana-ido-0.10.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a21715b13
FEDORA-2024-8a21715b13 (libayatana-ido-0.10.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
what is the new package ?
Hi Sergio, I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase please?
sorry , what is the next package to review ? I will try to review quickly
Ah :) libayatana-indicator [0] but the tests need dbus-test-runner [1]. It's a complicated package, so take your time. [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253580 [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265817
FEDORA-2024-d31e38bb6f (libayatana-ido-0.10.1-3.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d31e38bb6f
FEDORA-2024-d31e38bb6f (libayatana-ido-0.10.1-3.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-84bce809b7 (libayatana-ido-0.10.1-3.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-84bce809b7