Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/duc/duc.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/duc/duc-1.4.5-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Duc is a collection of tools for indexing, inspecting and visualizing disk usage. Duc maintains a database of accumulated sizes of directories of the file system, and allows you to query this database with some tools, or create fancy graphs showing you where your bytes are. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112317694
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6949564 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2260290-duc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06949564-duc/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.
Unlike previous packaging attempts (bug 1764368 and bug 1822362) this is just a minimal pristine upstream packaging, with extra system features, though perhaps they could be considered later.
Also I created a copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/petersen/duc/ for easy testing. Usage is fairly intuitive as long as one gives a dir path.
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. 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 1-Clause License", "Khronos License". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2260290-duc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4076 bytes in 2 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). [ ]: 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]: 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 ------- Checking: duc-1.4.5-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm duc-debuginfo-1.4.5-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm duc-debugsource-1.4.5-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm duc-1.4.5-1.fc40.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/tmpikywv0f5')] checks: 32, packages: 4 duc.aarch64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog duc.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog duc-debuginfo.aarch64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog duc-debugsource.aarch64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: duc-debuginfo-1.4.5-1.fc40.aarch64.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/tmpdae7964d')] checks: 32, packages: 1 duc-debuginfo.aarch64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 duc.aarch64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog duc-debuginfo.aarch64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog duc-debugsource.aarch64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zevv/duc/releases/download/1.4.5/duc-1.4.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c69512ca85b443e42ffbb4026eedd5492307af612047afb9c469df923b468bfd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c69512ca85b443e42ffbb4026eedd5492307af612047afb9c469df923b468bfd Requires -------- duc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libtokyocabinet.so.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) duc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): duc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- duc: duc duc(aarch-64) duc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) duc-debuginfo duc-debuginfo(aarch-64) duc-debugsource: duc-debugsource duc-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2260290 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Python, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Additional licenses: BSD 1-Clause License -------------------- duc-1.4.5/src/libduc/uthash.h duc-1.4.5/src/libduc/utlist.h duc-1.4.5/src/libduc/utstring.h These come from uthash which is packaged: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uthash If possible, use the packaged version, if not indicate it is bundled and add the license. b) Can tests be run in the check section? c) It is possible to run duc as a GUI application. Can a desktop file and launcher for duc -gui be added?
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > Comments: > a) Additional licenses: > BSD 1-Clause License > -------------------- > duc-1.4.5/src/libduc/uthash.h > duc-1.4.5/src/libduc/utlist.h > duc-1.4.5/src/libduc/utstring.h > > These come from uthash which is packaged: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uthash > > If possible, use the packaged version, if not indicate it is bundled and add > the license. It seems to build with the fedora package files. > b) Can tests be run in the check section? There are tests included? Do you mean some runtime test? Honestly I would rather take that up or accept such later. > c) It is possible to run duc as a GUI application. Can a desktop file and > launcher for duc -gui be added? Let me try... This is a somewhat casual package submission: I don't have lots of time to invest in it - so help would be welcome. I am also not sure how active upstream is: there hasn't been a new release or commit in a while.
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/duc/duc.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/duc/duc-1.4.5-2.fc41.src.rpm - build with uthash-devel (#2260290, Benson Muite) - add desktop file (#2260290, Benson Muite) Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113886408
Created attachment 2018152 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6949564 to 7049310
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7049310 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2260290-duc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07049310-duc/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.
One other problem: I am seeing a segfault on focus with the gui in Gnome Wayland - though I am running from a Rawhide toolbox.
I checked and the crash is unrelated to the uthash change and also occurs under F40 Xorg. But if one doesn't focus then the gui is still useable - I probably prefer (t)ui anyway. #0 __pthread_kill_implementation (threadid=<optimized out>, signo=signo@entry=6, no_tid=no_tid@entry=0) at pthread_kill.c:44 #1 0x00007ffff79271a3 in __pthread_kill_internal (threadid=<optimized out>, signo=6) at pthread_kill.c:78 #2 0x00007ffff78cf63e in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26 #3 0x00007ffff78b78ff in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79 #4 0x00007ffff78b8764 in __libc_message_impl (fmt=fmt@entry=0x7ffff7a3e173 "*** %s ***: terminated\n") at ../sysdeps/posix/libc_fatal.c:132 #5 0x00007ffff79b34c9 in __GI___fortify_fail (msg=msg@entry=0x7ffff7a3e15a "buffer overflow detected") at fortify_fail.c:24 #6 0x00007ffff79b2e64 in __GI___chk_fail () at chk_fail.c:28 #7 0x00007ffff79b4655 in ___snprintf_chk (s=<optimized out>, maxlen=<optimized out>, flag=<optimized out>, slen=<optimized out>, format=<optimized out>) at snprintf_chk.c:29 #8 0x000055555555e6f0 in snprintf (__s=<optimized out>, __n=16640, __fmt=0x5555555697c0 "type: %s\nactual size: %s\napparent size: %s\nfile count: %s") at /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:54 #9 gen_tooltip (g=g@entry=0x5555555e2d40, size=size@entry=0x555555b63500, name=0x555555b3fc10 "build", type=<optimized out>) at src/libduc-graph/graph.c:213 #10 0x0000555555565746 in do_dir (g=g@entry=0x5555555e2d40, dir=dir@entry=0x555555b38710, level=3, r1=r1@entry=191.70920376517105, a1_dir=a1_dir@entry=0.85053446254481169, a2_dir=a2_dir@entry=0.85182215271449957, total=<optimized out>) at src/libduc-graph/graph.c:339 #11 0x000055555556586f in do_dir (g=g@entry=0x5555555e2d40, dir=dir@entry=0x555555b4c670, level=2, r1=r1@entry=139.20920376517105, a1_dir=a1_dir@entry=0.85053446254481169, a2_dir=a2_dir@entry=0.85183868066828194, total=<optimized out>) at src/libduc-graph/graph.c:367 #12 0x000055555556586f in do_dir (g=g@entry=0x5555555e2d40, dir=dir@entry=0x555555b3e6e0, level=1, r1=r1@entry=86.709203765171054, a1_dir=a1_dir@entry=0.85053446254481169, a2_dir=a2_dir@entry=0.85246091748568087, total=<optimized out>) at src/libduc-graph/graph.c:367 #13 0x000055555556586f in do_dir (g=g@entry=0x5555555e2d40, dir=dir@entry=0x5555555a5de0, level=level@entry=0, r1=60, a1_dir=a1_dir@entry=0, a2_dir=<optimized out>, total=total@entry=0x0) at src/libduc-graph/graph.c:367 #14 0x0000555555565dd0 in duc_graph_draw (g=0x5555555e2d40, dir=0x5555555a5de0) at src/libduc-graph/graph.c:436 #15 0x0000555555567c43 in draw () at src/duc/cmd-gui.c:79 #16 do_gui (duc=<optimized out>, graph=<optimized out>, dir=<optimized out>) at src/duc/cmd-gui.c:193 #17 gui_main (duc=<optimized out>, argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at src/duc/cmd-gui.c:293 #18 0x0000555555559b65 in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at src/duc/main.c:179
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 [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Khronos License". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2260290-duc/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 4076 bytes in 2 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. [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: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: duc-1.4.5-2.fc41.aarch64.rpm duc-debuginfo-1.4.5-2.fc41.aarch64.rpm duc-debugsource-1.4.5-2.fc41.aarch64.rpm duc-1.4.5-2.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/tmpbecnnzt0')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: duc-debuginfo-1.4.5-2.fc41.aarch64.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/tmpdmtbcqf9')] 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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zevv/duc/releases/download/1.4.5/duc-1.4.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c69512ca85b443e42ffbb4026eedd5492307af612047afb9c469df923b468bfd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c69512ca85b443e42ffbb4026eedd5492307af612047afb9c469df923b468bfd Requires -------- duc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libtokyocabinet.so.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) duc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): duc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- duc: application() application(duc.desktop) duc duc(aarch-64) duc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) duc-debuginfo duc-debuginfo(aarch-64) duc-debugsource: duc-debugsource duc-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2260290 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Python, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Thanks for th updates. Raised issue upstream about enabling index operation from GUI b) Do not get a segfault, so it maybe F40 and rawhide only. Perhaps try using %configure --enable-opengl --disable-x11 and add glfw-devel to the dependencies. This works for me on F40. c) Can the test script be run? Adding ./test.sh in the %check section fails with file not found, but perhaps am doing something wrong, not sure why the file is removed. If not, perhaps a smoke test ./duc -h could be added. d) Please add cairo-devel to the dependencies, it is pulled in by pango-devel but is needed separately e) Documentation files seem to indicate GPL: https://github.com/zevv/duc/blob/master/doc/duc.md Made a pull request upstream f) One file seems to have Khronos license: Khronos License --------------- duc-1.4.5/src/glad/KHR/khrplatform.h
> a) Thanks for th updates. Raised issue upstream about enabling index > operation from GUI Thanks > b) Do not get a segfault, so it maybe F40 and rawhide only. Perhaps try using > %configure --enable-opengl --disable-x11 > and add glfw-devel to the dependencies. This works for me on F40. Okay > c) Can the test script be run? Adding ./test.sh in the %check section fails > with file not found, but perhaps > am doing something wrong, not sure why the file is removed. I don't think you are doing anything wrong: there is no "test.sh" in the tarballs... ;o) I suppose it is only in the git repo. > If not, perhaps a smoke test ./duc -h could be added. Sure > d) Please add cairo-devel to the dependencies, it is pulled in by > pango-devel but is needed separately Okay > e) Documentation files seem to indicate GPL: > https://github.com/zevv/duc/blob/master/doc/duc.md > Made a pull request upstream Thanks! Yeah that is confusing, though the License file appears perhaps newer so I tend to agree. > f) One file seems to have Khronos license: > Khronos License > --------------- > duc-1.4.5/src/glad/KHR/khrplatform.h Is that MIT-Khronos, which has not been approved yet by SPDX? Hmm Anyway I will note it.
rpmlint says: duc.x86_64: W: invalid-license LicenseRef-MIT-Khronos Not sure if there is a more proper way to denote it? Or I could just leave it as a comment. gui still seems to crash for me with mouse focus, shrug.
Also would you like to comaintain the package?
Asked on Legal mailing list about Khronos license. MIT-Khronos-old is on the allowed list: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/