[Bug 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971



--- Comment #37 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Let's make this the last one...

(In reply to David Cantrell from comment #36)
> [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.

It does not.

> [ ]: Package contains no static executables.

It does not.

> [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>      Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>      attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

They are.

> [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>      other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>      Guidelines.

Yes, Apache License 2.0

> [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No
>      copyright* Apache License (v2.0)". 218 files have unknown license.
>      Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/dcantrell/notcurses/licensecheck.txt

Yep, ASL 2.0 which is how Fedora spells "Apache License 2.0".

> [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No
>      copyright* Apache License (v2.0)". 218 files have unknown license.
>      Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/dcantrell/notcurses/licensecheck.txt

Yes.

> [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

Yes.

> [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

Yes.

> [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

It does not.

> [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.

Yes.  rpm does not complain.

> [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.

Correct, using the DFSG source release.

> [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.

It is not a desktop application.

> [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package

They are.

> [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.

It does not.

> [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>      names).

Yes.

> [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

It is.

> [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.

Nope.

> [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.

It does.

> [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>      Provides are present.

N/A

> [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

Yes.

> [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

Yes.

> [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.

N/A

> [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

Yes.

> [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

N/A

> [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>      (~1MB) or number of files.
>      Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 4 files.

Not needed here.

> [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

Again, this is what I'm doing.

> [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
>      process.

It does not.

> [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
>      provide egg info.

It does.

> [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python

Yes, very much so.

> [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
>      file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

It includes the license.

> [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

Yes.

> [ ]: Package functions as described.

Yes.

> [ ]: Latest version is packaged.

Yes.

> [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

It does not.

> [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>      translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

N/A

> [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.

It does.

> [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.

N/A until doctest passes package review.

> [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>      files.

It does.  But really, what is time?

> [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
>      is arched.
>      Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4044800 bytes in /usr/share

We're ok with this.

> notcurses.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnotcurses.so.1.3.3
> exit@GLIBC_2.2.5

This is ok per comment #34 and comment #35.

> notcurses-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation

notcurses-static requires the main package which brings in documentation.

> notcurses-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno
> -2] Name or service not known>
> notcurses-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno
> -2] Name or service not known>
> notcurses-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno
> -2] Name or service not known>
> python3-notcurses.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno
> -2] Name or service not known>
> notcurses-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno
> -2] Name or service not known>
> notcurses-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno
> -2] Name or service not known>
> notcurses-static.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno
> -2] Name or service not known>
> notcurses-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> notcurses.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno
> -2] Name or service not known>

Lies.  This is bogus, so disregard.  URL is valid.

> notcurses.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnotcurses.so.1.3.3
> exit@GLIBC_2.2.5

This is ok per comment #34 and comment #35.

> python3-notcurses: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/_notcurses.abi3.so

This is a bug in fedora-review.  See, I filed it:
https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/389


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux