Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1327198
Summary: | Review Request: libtermkey - Library for easy processing of keyboard entry from terminal-based programs | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Josef Ridky <jridky> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | jridky, jskarvad, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jridky:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-08-25 13:55:30 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1327160 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 1394789 |
Description
Igor Gnatenko
2016-04-14 12:33:58 UTC
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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jridky/fedrr/1327198-libtermkey/licensecheck.txt - The MIT/X11 is not in the .spec file under License tag. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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 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: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libtermkey-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libtermkey-0.18-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm libtermkey-devel-0.18-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm libtermkey-debuginfo-0.18-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm libtermkey-0.18-1.fc25.src.rpm libtermkey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recognise -> recognize, recognition libtermkey.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtermkey.so.1.12.0 exit.5 libtermkey.x86_64: W: no-documentation libtermkey-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libtermkey.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recognise -> recognize, recognition libtermkey.src:43: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libtermkey-debuginfo-0.18-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libtermkey-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libtermkey.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recognise -> recognize, recognition libtermkey.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtermkey.so.1.12.0 exit.5 libtermkey.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- libtermkey-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtermkey(x86-64) libtermkey.so.1()(64bit) libtermkey-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtermkey (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libunibilium.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libtermkey-devel: libtermkey-devel libtermkey-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(termkey) libtermkey-debuginfo: libtermkey-debuginfo libtermkey-debuginfo(x86-64) libtermkey: libtermkey libtermkey(x86-64) libtermkey.so.1()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.leonerd.org.uk/code/libtermkey//libtermkey-0.18.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 239746de41c845af52bb3c14055558f743292dd6c24ac26c2d6567a5a6093926 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 239746de41c845af52bb3c14055558f743292dd6c24ac26c2d6567a5a6093926 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1327198 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L /var/tmp/rpms Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: /var/tmp/rpms/unibilium-devel-1.2.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /var/tmp/rpms/unibilium-1.2.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm review was executed with package unibilium-1.2.0-1 > - The MIT/X11 is not in the .spec file under License tag.
> License: MIT
then what's there? ;)
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > > - The MIT/X11 is not in the .spec file under License tag. > > License: MIT > then what's there? ;) It's false positive from the fedora-review wrongly marked by reviewer as failure, please ignore it. But: libtermkey.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtermkey.so.1.12.0 exit.5 Why it needs to call exit? Could you forward this upstream? And it would be also great to pull request the fix-test-compile patch upstream. Otherwise it seems OK. (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > > > - The MIT/X11 is not in the .spec file under License tag. > > > License: MIT > > then what's there? ;) > > It's false positive from the fedora-review wrongly marked by reviewer as > failure, please ignore it. ;) > > But: > libtermkey.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtermkey.so.1.12.0 > exit.5 > > Why it needs to call exit? Could you forward this upstream? i don't know. see below about upstream. > > And it would be also great to pull request the fix-test-compile patch > upstream. Upstream is dead -> no bugtracker, no public repository. (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #5) > Upstream is dead -> no bugtracker, no public repository. Hmm, from the upstream website: > Note: This project is now DEAD; end-of-life. There will likely be no further > releases. > > All of the code will be migrated into libtickit instead. libtermkey should not > be used for new programs; use libtickit. AFAIK it's not against any guideline to add dead/EOL code into Fedora, well you will maintain it :) , but such packages are usually quickly orphaned or dropped when something breaks and can also pose higher security risk. Cannot be the project of interest switched to libtickit or some different library? Maybe some work for now, but definitely less maintainer work in the future. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libtermkey libtermkey-0.18-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d0cd6b1c21 libtermkey-0.18-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-da3f432a8a libtermkey-0.18-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d0cd6b1c21 libtermkey-0.18-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-da3f432a8a libtermkey-0.18-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. libtermkey-0.18-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |