[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-22 07:46:25 --- Comment #8 from Qiyu Yan --- Built in rawhide -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xcb-imdkit -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Andy Mender --- > You've probably run into the glibc + systemd-nspawn bug that has been > discussed on fedora-devel-list recently. Try adding "--isolation=simple" to > the mock arguments. Indeed, I have. This did the trick, thanks! Package approved! -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #4) > Could this be some sort of f32->f34 bug? You've probably run into the glibc + systemd-nspawn bug that has been discussed on fedora-devel-list recently. Try adding "--isolation=simple" to the mock arguments. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845
--- Comment #4 from Andy Mender ---
Things look mostly clean now. I managed to build everything in a local mock
environment and all of the tests pass now. rpmlint picked up something funny,
though:
xcb-imdkit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libxcb-imdkit.so.0.1 555
I checked the permissions of other libs in %{_libdir} and they're typically
755. Inside mock I see the usual "umask 022" calls which should set everything
to 755. rpmlint doesn't complain about the -devel package either. The versioned
SO file inside the xcb-imdkit RPM generated inside mock indeed has permissions
set to 555. Curiously, when I build the package inside a Fedora 32 mock, I get
correct permissions (755) for the SO file.
Here are the `ls -l` records after installing the f32 version of xcb-imdkit on
my system:
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root20 Aug 17 21:42 libxcb-imdkit.so.0 ->
libxcb-imdkit.so.0.1
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root575216 Aug 17 21:42 libxcb-imdkit.so.0.1
Could this be some sort of f32->f34 bug?
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01607826-xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01607826-xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.src.rpm Description: xcb-imdkit is an implementation of xim protocol in xcb, comparing with the implementation of IMDkit with Xlib, and xim inside Xlib, it has less memory foot print, better performance, and safer on malformed client. Fedora Account System Username: yanqiyu -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845
--- Comment #3 from Qiyu Yan ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49309699
>
> > License:LGPLv2
>
> licensecheck picked up a couple of files with a different license:
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPubI.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPublic.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCT.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCharSet.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcUTF8.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
>
> Here's the text of the license for reference:
> https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP
>
> I checked the files and indeed the license comments in them match the NTP
> license. The problem is that NTP is not an official license tag:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:
> Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List
>
> I will contact Fedora Legal to get some feedback on this. Upstream should
> also be informed, I think, since they do not mention the NTP license in the
> README. They mention the BSD license, but licensecheck didn't pick up any
> BSD-licensed files.
>
> > BuildRequires: cmake, extra-cmake-modules
> > BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> > BuildRequires: libxcb-devel, xcb-util-devel, xcb-util-keysyms-devel
>
> Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically?
> Also, could you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)"
> format for the -devel packages?
>
> > %files
> > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-only.txt
> > %doc README.md
> > %{_libdir}/*.so.*
>
> I would be more explicit in the final line, like this:
> %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
>
> You can also use "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0*" so that soname bumps across
> package updates are captured more easily.
>
> > %files devel
> > %{_includedir}/xcb-imdkit
> > %{_libdir}/cmake/XCBImdkit
> > %{_libdir}/*.so
>
> Same here - "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so" instead of "%{_libdir}/*.so"
Above are fixed
>
> The full review matrix:
> 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
> BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
> [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
> [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one supported primary architecture.
> Note: Using prebuilt packages
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines.
> Review: Theoretically yes, but the NTP license doesn't have a dedicated
> license tag.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "Unknown or generated", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)",
> "Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License". 87 files have
> unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit/licensecheck.txt
> Review: see comment above.
> [x]: 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.
> [?]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> Review: Not sure about this. rpmlint complains
> and package uses commit hashes for versioning.
This is because %forgemeta did something tricky, the snapshot date generated
can be different. Anyway, changed to 20200811, should silent the warning.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> Review: Yes, but see comments about licenses.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [?]: 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
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 --- Comment #2 from Andy Mender --- Got a response in the Fedora Legal mailing list to my NTP license inquiry: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/PQZQPBFMGNP6DUXFUVCICSLLYB3NZ3FA/ The License field should contain the following: LGPLv2 and MIT and a comment above explaining that some files in src/xlibi18n use the "old style" MIT license known as NTP. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49309699
> License:LGPLv2
licensecheck picked up a couple of files with a different license:
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPubI.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPublic.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCT.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCharSet.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcUTF8.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
Here's the text of the license for reference:
https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP
I checked the files and indeed the license comments in them match the NTP
license. The problem is that NTP is not an official license tag:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List
I will contact Fedora Legal to get some feedback on this. Upstream should also
be informed, I think, since they do not mention the NTP license in the README.
They mention the BSD license, but licensecheck didn't pick up any BSD-licensed
files.
> BuildRequires: cmake, extra-cmake-modules
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> BuildRequires: libxcb-devel, xcb-util-devel, xcb-util-keysyms-devel
Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically? Also,
could you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)" format for
the -devel packages?
> %files
> %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-only.txt
> %doc README.md
> %{_libdir}/*.so.*
I would be more explicit in the final line, like this:
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
You can also use "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0*" so that soname bumps across
package updates are captured more easily.
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/xcb-imdkit
> %{_libdir}/cmake/XCBImdkit
> %{_libdir}/*.so
Same here - "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so" instead of "%{_libdir}/*.so"
The full review matrix:
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
Review: Theoretically yes, but the NTP license doesn't have a dedicated
license tag.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)",
"Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License". 87 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit/licensecheck.txt
Review: see comment above.
[x]: 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.
[?]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Review: Not sure about this. rpmlint complains
and package uses commit hashes for versioning.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Review: Yes, but see comments about licenses.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms
[Bug 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
