[Bug 2335618] New: Review Request: Aegisub - Tool for creating and modifying subtitles

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618

            Bug ID: 2335618
           Summary: Review Request: Aegisub - Tool for creating and
                    modifying subtitles
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Hardware: All
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Assignee: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Reporter: elfile4138@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        QA Contact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                CC: package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora



Package: Aegisub
Description:
Aegisub is an advanced subtitle editor which assists in the creation of
subtitles, timing, and editing of subtitle files. It supports a wide range
of formats and provides powerful visual typesetting tools.

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/Aegisub/fedora-41-x86_64/08471731-Aegisub/Aegisub.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/el-file4138/Aegisub/fedora-41-x86_64/08471731-Aegisub/Aegisub-3.4.1-1.fc41.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/el-file4138/Aegisub/build/8471731/
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127557570

Fedora Account System Username: el-file4138

Issues:
- New contributors
Requesting to be sponsored. Self Introduction:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/XMUVUP642IMPONIXIUNAV7ERWBILDEXN/

- Spec file mismatch
Used %autochangelog.

- No documentation
Upstream did not provide documentation. The manual can be viewed on the project
website.

- Bundled library
Bundled library `luabins` is in form of pure source code, is not included in
Fedora Package registry, and does not provide additional shared library.

Not sure whether this requires FPC grants, but if do hereby requesting.

- Project Licensing

Upstream hasn't finished clearing the decade-old codebase, thus the licensing
is diversified:

Declared in Meson Builds (Currently acknowledged project-wide license):
BSD-3-Clause

LICENCE file: BSD-3-Clause for the project, and indicates:

src/gl/
 - MIT license. See src/gl/glext.h

src/MatroskaParser.(c|h)
 - Licensed to BSDL with permission from the author.

# Not included currently
universalchardet/
 - MPL 1.1

Auto scanned:

GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass
Ave)]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Copied from AviSynth, GPL-2.0 project but grants exemption from GPL license
src/avisynth.h

MIT License
-----------
automation/autoload/cleantags-autoload.lua
automation/include/cleantags.lua
# Included subproject
subprojects/luabins/COPYRIGHT
subprojects/luabins/src/luabins.h

ISC License
-----------
automation/autoload/select-overlaps.moon
automation/autoload/strip-tags.lua
automation/include/aegisub/argcheck.moon
automation/include/aegisub/clipboard.lua
automation/include/aegisub/ffi.moon
... 339 file omitted

Auto scanned with correction:

Khronos License
---------------
# Corrected by LICENCE file
src/gl/glext.h

*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2
----------------------------------------------------
# All locale file are distributed under the same license with the main project
po/fi.po
po/fr_FR.po
po/pt_BR.po
po/tr.po
po/zh_CN.po
po/zh_TW.po

***

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[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]: 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.
[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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright*
     BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License,
     Version 2", "ISC License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
     [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "MIT License", "Khronos
     License". 989 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /review-Aegisub/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[-]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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]: 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)
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3962880 bytes in /usr/share
[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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: Aegisub-3.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          Aegisub-3.4.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpv5t98rhx')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

Aegisub.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aegisub
Aegisub.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.5 s




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: Aegisub-debuginfo-3.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6rmwyg9c')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0
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-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

Aegisub.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aegisub
Aegisub.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.6 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/releases/download/v3.4.1/Aegisub-3.4.1.tar.xz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
58ec2420be98a7dc71d25b24be190515b6e158bd325f019346452aa134e87e95
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
58ec2420be98a7dc71d25b24be190515b6e158bd325f019346452aa134e87e95


Requires
--------
Aegisub (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libGL.so.1()(64bit)
    libasound.so.2()(64bit)
    libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
    libass.so.9()(64bit)
    libboost_locale.so.1.83.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcurl.so.4()(64bit)
    libffms2.so.5()(64bit)
    libfftw3.so.3()(64bit)
    libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libhunspell-1.7.so.0()(64bit)
    libicui18n.so.76()(64bit)
    libicuuc.so.76()(64bit)
    libluajit-5.1.so.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libopenal.so.1()(64bit)
    libportaudio.so.2()(64bit)
    libpulse.so.0()(64bit)
    libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libuchardet.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libwx_baseu_xml-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_baseu_xml-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_stc-3.2.so.0()(64bit)
    libwx_gtk3u_stc-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
Aegisub:
    Aegisub
    Aegisub(x86-64)
    application()
    application(org.aegisub.Aegisub.desktop)
    metainfo()
    metainfo(org.aegisub.Aegisub.metainfo.xml)
    mimehandler(application/x-srt)
    mimehandler(text/plain)
    mimehandler(text/x-ass)
    mimehandler(text/x-microdvd)
    mimehandler(text/x-ssa)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /media/WorkDir/Documents/Projects/Coding/Others/rpm/aegisub/Aegisub.spec   
2025-01-04 23:57:01.953033399 +0100
+++
/media/WorkDir/Documents/Projects/Coding/Others/rpm/aegisub/review-Aegisub/srpm-unpacked/Aegisub.spec
      2025-01-04 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,2 +1,7 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autochangelog
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global         gituser         TypesettingTools
 %global         altname         aegisub
@@ -80,3 +85,6 @@

 %changelog
-%autochangelog
\ 文件末尾没有换行符
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Sat Jan 04 2025 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.4.1-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n Aegisub
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2335618

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202335618%23c0

-- 
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




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

  Powered by Linux