Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/morserunner/morserunner.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/morserunner/morserunner-1.68z%5e20250901git29590a67-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Amateur radio morse code contest simulator. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9513130 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2392425-morserunner/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09513130-morserunner/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.
> %global git_commit 29590a6719c725bc95730e72213a00ef92cfa489 > %global git_date 20250901 Looking at the upstream repo, that commit is dated 2022-05-23, not 2025-09-01. > BuildRequires: lazarus This will pull in the whole graphical IDE. You can BR "lazarus-tools" and "lazarus-lcl-gtk2" instead, to get only the command-line tools, for a smaller install size. > %build > %make_build Looking at the upstream Makefile, "make all" only calls lazbuild. You could call lazbuild yourself and avoid "BuildRequires: make" this way.
I lack attempt to propose full license text to upstream. I am not even sure what the original license for the work is. It does not seem to be MPL-2.0 from original author. https://www.dxatlas.com/MorseRunner/ says it is freeware. It would not be allowed into Fedora in that case. It seems primary blocker to me. The only thing similar to license seems at the end of the README. https://github.com/zmetzing/MorseRunner/blob/master/Readme.txt#L303 It looks like 0BSD license [1], but without critical line stating copying and redistribution is okay. Without such line I think this cannot be considered open-source or free software. Adding just external MPL-2.0 licensefile to is would be changing license of the other people and is not permitted IMO. In fact, it seems this license is actually BSD-1-Clause like [2], which would not be a free software. But. Okay, I missed that in original Main.pas in oldest commit I could find. Initial VE3NEA commit [3] already contains MPL-2.0 reference. That indeed indicates code should be covered by MPL, even though readme has some partial BSD like license. But especially for this reason, it should be clarified upstream and license file included upstream too, unless it is refused. Created issue #9 on original repository [4], it would be nice to have this clarified by the original author. But I would require at least pull request reference with request to add license file into the current repository source as minimal action. 1. https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html 2. https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-1-Clause.html 3. https://github.com/VE3NEA/MorseRunner/commit/68972b0af28d74cc15e45f20d440a91ff394ae21#diff-cec3def47689c344e54cac3b2c7dd5f33f4ad5204aec540254959bd35c8bb34cR2 4. https://github.com/VE3NEA/MorseRunner/issues/9
I think it might be executed with a helper runner in Linux, which would cd into ~/.local/share/morserunner, create symlink to /usr/share/morserunner/Master.dta. It would make the file accessible from current directory like the program expects. Okay, ini file would not be in ~/.config then, unless similar symlink were prepared for ini file. But it would allow to avoid fixed downstream patch changing paths and have unmodified pascal code. Making morserunner-1.68z-linux-dirs.patch patch not necessary. It could work both on Windows and Linux with the same code.
A bit surprisingly original author reacted to license issue right away, created https://github.com/zmetzing/MorseRunner/pull/2 to request license inclusion into that fork too.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2392425-morserunner/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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. [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 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 8448 bytes in 1 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. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: [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: morserunner-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm morserunner-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmprew2uxi6')] checks: 32, packages: 2 morserunner.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/MorseRunner morserunner.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MorseRunner morserunner.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: morserunner-debuginfo-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxcwpup65')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2 morserunner.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/MorseRunner /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 morserunner.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/MorseRunner morserunner.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MorseRunner 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zmetzing/MorseRunner/archive/29590a6719c725bc95730e72213a00ef92cfa489/morserunner-29590a6719c725bc95730e72213a00ef92cfa489.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4057f526b292a9fc7731c551f7aabbec41b9e0b5f044db13fe8f2a9ae69c087f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4057f526b292a9fc7731c551f7aabbec41b9e0b5f044db13fe8f2a9ae69c087f Requires -------- morserunner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- morserunner: application() application(morserunner.desktop) morserunner morserunner(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2392425 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Haskell, Perl, R, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #2) > > %global git_commit 29590a6719c725bc95730e72213a00ef92cfa489 > > %global git_date 20250901 > Looking at the upstream repo, that commit is dated 2022-05-23, not > 2025-09-01. > AFAIK it's not commit date, but checkout date. It's probably redundant with the git hashes, but useful with e.g. CVS where the "commit ID"/change can be the same, but the commit could be modified after the checkout. > > BuildRequires: lazarus > This will pull in the whole graphical IDE. You can BR "lazarus-tools" and > "lazarus-lcl-gtk2" instead, > to get only the command-line tools, for a smaller install size. > I will update it. > > %build > > %make_build > Looking at the upstream Makefile, "make all" only calls lazbuild. > You could call lazbuild yourself and avoid "BuildRequires: make" this way. > I will use the upstream Makefile, the additional 'make' dependency is negligible.
Petr thanks for the review. I will probably use the patch for now, the code change isn't problem, because the upstream doesn't seem to develop the fork more. In the future I would like to package much better community edition version of the software (https://groups.io/g/MorseRunnerCE) which shares the same core codebase, but at the moment doesn't work on Linux and will require a lot of work (and patches) to get it working in Linux.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/morserunner
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #7) > > > BuildRequires: lazarus > > This will pull in the whole graphical IDE. You can BR "lazarus-tools" and > > "lazarus-lcl-gtk2" instead, > > to get only the command-line tools, for a smaller install size. > > > I will update it. > It didn't work in rawhide: DEBUG util.py:459: No match for argument: lazarus-lcl-gtk2 DEBUG util.py:459: No match for argument: lazarus-tools So I stuck with the lazarus.
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #10) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #7) > > > > BuildRequires: lazarus > > > This will pull in the whole graphical IDE. You can BR "lazarus-tools" and > > > "lazarus-lcl-gtk2" instead, > > > to get only the command-line tools, for a smaller install size. > > > > > I will update it. > > > It didn't work in rawhide: > DEBUG util.py:459: No match for argument: lazarus-lcl-gtk2 > DEBUG util.py:459: No match for argument: lazarus-tools > So I stuck with the lazarus. Ah, got it, the problem is probably that the lazarus isn't available for the s390x.
FEDORA-2025-7533dc39b4 (morserunner-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7533dc39b4
FEDORA-2025-fba73feabc (morserunner-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-fba73feabc
FEDORA-2025-9ea0f20e06 (morserunner-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9ea0f20e06
FEDORA-2025-7533dc39b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-7533dc39b4` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7533dc39b4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-fba73feabc has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-fba73feabc` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-fba73feabc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9ea0f20e06 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-9ea0f20e06` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9ea0f20e06 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-fba73feabc (morserunner-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-9ea0f20e06 (morserunner-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-7533dc39b4 (morserunner-1.68z^20250901git29590a67-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.