Spec URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pysdl2.spec SRPM URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pysdl2-0.9.16-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: PySDL2 is a pure Python wrapper around the SDL2, SDL2_mixer, SDL2_image, SDL2_ttf, and SDL2_gfx libraries. Instead of relying on C code, it uses the built-in ctypes module to interface with SDL2, and provides simple Python classes and wrappers for common SDL2 functionality. Fedora Account System Username: gui1ty
The actual license text[1] says, ---- This software is distributed under the Public Domain. Since it is not enough anymore to tell people: 'hey, just do with it whatever you like to do', you can consider this software being distributed under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.txt). In cases, where the law prohibits the recognition of Public Domain software, this software can be licensed under the zlib license as stated below: Copyright (C) 2012-2020 Marcus von Appen <marcus> This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgement in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. [… further notes about files with other licenses in the examples and documentation, not reproduced here …] ---- Ignoring for now the mentioned example and documentation files, this appears much more complicated than LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain. The "Public Domain" status seems conflated with the CC0-1.0 license, and it is not clear that there exists a public-domain dedication without the CC0-1.0 terms – which are not allowed for code in Fedora. The zlib license option is another wrinkle. This would seem to provide an outlet for the CC0-1.0 problem, but the license text only says that zlib can be used “in cases, where the law prohibits the recognition of Public Domain software,” which is quite different from an “at your option” clause. The license here needs legal review, at best, and it looks to me like it will not turn out to be acceptable for Fedora. [1] https://github.com/py-sdl/py-sdl2/blob/rel_0_9_7/doc/copying.rst
I disagree with your assessment. The first line clearly states "This software is distributed under the Public Domain.". All the rest is for people not knowing what "Public Domain" means or who require a particular license be clearly specified. Those people can opt for one of the other stated licenses. Also the phrase 'hey, just do with it whatever you like to do' sounds very familiar and appears in a variety of paraphrasings in other Public Domain license, e.g. the infamous WTFPL. But, since the issue has been raised, I will let Fedora Legal decide. [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/WTFPL.html
Much of the CC0-1.0 software I know of applies the license by conflating CC0-1.0 with the public domain, something roughly like this: This software is in the public domain. Specifically, you can use it under CC0-1.0. So I’m interested to see what Fedora Legal thinks here. Per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_public_domain, uses of LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain require review and recording the text in https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domain-text.txt anyway, so the effort won’t be wasted.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #3) > Per > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/ > #_public_domain, uses of LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain require review and > recording the text in > https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public- > domain-text.txt anyway, so the effort won’t be wasted. Thanks, again. I wasn't aware of `public-domain-text.txt` until now. The license text has now been submitted: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/599
MR has been merged.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec - There is a small typo (actuall/actually) here: # Make sure we actuall ship the file containing the license but it is not very important. Still, you may wish to fix it on import. ===== 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. The assignment of LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain is supported by Fedora Legal opinion, and the text was added to public-domain-text.txt. It could be helpful to add a link to https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/44KT5NKIT77ZWME464KDBYNH6WBCG4DA/ to the spec file to assist anyone who comes along later and tries to understand the rationale for the License field. Everything that is present in the source RPM only seems to have an acceptable license. Specifically, I note that tuffy.ttf would be LicenseRef-PublicDomain: This font, including hint instructions, has been donated to the Public Domain. Do whatever you want with it. [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", "Public domain and/or zlib License", "*No copyright* Public domain and/or zlib License". 253 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2283541-python-pysdl2/licensecheck.txt See above. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 3534 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. (tests pass) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121216077 [x]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) OK: the only differences are due to rpmautospec macro expansion [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pysdl2-0.9.16-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-pysdl2-0.9.16-1.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/tmpgxa39uba')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pysdl2.src: E: spelling-error ('ctypes', '%description -l en_US ctypes -> types, c types') python3-pysdl2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ctypes', '%description -l en_US ctypes -> types, c types') ======================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s ======================================================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 1 python3-pysdl2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ctypes', '%description -l en_US ctypes -> types, c types') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/py-sdl/py-sdl2/archive/0.9.16/py-sdl2-0.9.16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0da6b0c041a6197059936f461cc004227e04de148a22f7d0295b2877be000254 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0da6b0c041a6197059936f461cc004227e04de148a22f7d0295b2877be000254 Requires -------- python3-pysdl2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SDL2 SDL2_gfx SDL2_image SDL2_mixer SDL2_ttf python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pysdl2: python-pysdl2 python3-pysdl2 python3.13-pysdl2 python3.13dist(pysdl2) python3dist(pysdl2) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2283541-python-pysdl2/srpm/python-pysdl2.spec 2024-07-02 20:13:44.374984472 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2283541-python-pysdl2/srpm-unpacked/python-pysdl2.spec 2024-05-26 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global pypi_name PySDL2 @@ -89,3 +99,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon May 27 2024 Sandro <devel> - 0.9.16-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2283541 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the review! (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #6) > - There is a small typo (actuall/actually) here: > > # Make sure we actuall ship the file containing the license > > but it is not very important. Still, you may wish to fix it on import. I'll fix on import. Looks like rpmlint's spell check could be useful, if only... > The assignment of LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain is supported by > Fedora Legal > opinion, and the text was added to public-domain-text.txt. > > It could be helpful to add a link to > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/ > message/44KT5NKIT77ZWME464KDBYNH6WBCG4DA/ > to the spec file to assist anyone who comes along later and tries to > understand the rationale for the License field. That's a good idea. I will put it in there. Though, this review has all the required information as well. And that would be _my_ first stop when questioning.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pysdl2
FEDORA-2024-dcd0226412 (python-pysdl2-0.9.16-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dcd0226412
FEDORA-2024-dcd0226412 (python-pysdl2-0.9.16-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.