[Bug 1936772] Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2227397 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227397 [Bug 2227397] Review Request: libsixel - SIXEL encoding and decoding -- 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=1936772 ___ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1936772] Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 Nick Black changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Flags|needinfo?(alebastr89@gmail. | |com)| Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2022-03-19 08:48:03 --- Comment #7 from Nick Black --- I don't see these problems as easily surmounted, and I'm no longer involved with libsixel. Closing! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 ___ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1936772] Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Nick Black has canceled Package Review 's request for Aleksei Bavshin 's needinfo: Bug 1936772: Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 --- Comment #7 from Nick Black --- I don't see these problems as easily surmounted, and I'm no longer involved with libsixel. Closing! ___ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936772] Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 --- Comment #5 from Nick Black --- Thanks Ben, and thanks for the review @alebast...@gmail.com. I'll get on your feedback before the end of the week. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936772] Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 Ben Cotton changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #4 from Ben Cotton --- The original license meets Fedora's standards and does not prohibit re-licensing. You may consider the combined work as MIT-licensed. Removing the FE-LEGAL block. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936772] Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 Ben Cotton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bcot...@redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Ben Cotton --- Ack. I'll look into it. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936772] Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin --- Adding FE-Legal blocker. https://github.com/saitoha/libsixel/blob/master/LICENSE.sixel looks benign and the source files in question mention that the code was relicensed under MIT[1][2]. I can't read the original license text though and not qualified to make decisions on the custom licenses, however permissive these are. Several sources are also originally distributed under public domain. In my (limited) understanding that means it's fine to distribute the result under MIT and keep the License tag as simple `MIT`. Ben, can you please look into that and confirm that it's safe to consider the combined work licensed as MIT? I hope we have someone who can read Japanese flavor of legalese :) [1] https://github.com/saitoha/libsixel/blob/master/src/fromsixel.c [2] https://github.com/saitoha/libsixel/blob/master/src/tosixel.c Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1936772] Review Request: sixel - Encoder and decoder for DEC Sixel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936772
Aleksei Bavshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||alebast...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alebast...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Aleksei Bavshin ---
> Name: sixel
Upstream name is libsixel and all other distributions are unanimously using
it[1].
Let's avoid renaming the package without a good reason.
> Source0:
> https://github.com/saitoha/lib%{name}/releases/download/v%{version}/libsixel-%{version}.tar.gz
You can shorten Source to
%{url}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz.
But the release archive lacks license files[2] so you'd really want to use
%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> BuildRequires: git
Unnecessary. Noting in the build process requires git.
> BuildRequires: gcc
> BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libjpeg)
> BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpng)
Missing `BuildRequires: make` [3].
There's an optional dependency on libcurl, but given that there are at least 2
known CVEs[4][5] in the file loaders it's better to keep network support
disabled.
> %package devel
> Summary: Development files for %{name}
> Provides: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
Uh... what? You are trying to tell that the main package with libraries is not
necessary if -devel is installed.
I believe you meant `Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}`.
Rpmlint agrees with me: sixel-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on
sixel/sixel-libs/libsixel
> %package utils
> Summary: Binaries from the libsixel project
How about `SIXEL decoder and encoder utilities`?
> License: MIT
You don't need to repeat the license for subpackage if it doesn't differ from
the main one.
> %description utils
> Binaries from libsixel.
sixel-utils.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
Let's make that at least `%{summary}.`
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
%make_build
> make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%make_install
Source archive contains unit tests. Consider running them at build time with
%check
%make_build test
> %files
> %doc ChangeLog NEWS
Please, add license files. For example:
%license LICENSE LICENSE.{pnmcolormap,sdump,sixel,stb}
Some of those are MIT and it's important to distribute these along with the
binaries.
> %{_mandir}/man5/*.5*
The man file could be more suitable for devel or utils subpackage. It's just a
generic description of a SIXEL format.
> %files utils
> # we don't want libsixel-config
We really want it in -devel package. Some applications may call libsixel-config
instead of using pkg-config at build time.
> %{_datadir}/bash-completion/*
> %{_datadir}/zsh/*
Please, be more explicit. Also, you need to own the zsh completion directories
(bash-completion is already owned by filesystem):
%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/*
%dir %{_datadir}/zsh
%dir %{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions
%{_datadir}/zsh/site-functions/_*
---
[1] https://repology.org/project/libsixel/versions
[2] https://github.com/saitoha/libsixel/pull/129
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
[4] https://github.com/saitoha/libsixel/issues/134 (CVE-2020-11721)
[5] https://github.com/saitoha/libsixel/issues/136 (CVE-2020-19668)
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
