[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com, ||domi...@greysector.net Flags||needinfo?(dominik@greysecto ||r.net) --- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng --- Rawhide is imported, so awhat about f19? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MIkbFtZPAh&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|983774 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zNqKEUdQCT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=isma2L8Thr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
||a...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
||a...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Paulo Andrade ---
Hi, the package appears good, and I feel if any issues
arise it is due to a vague possibility of it implementing
some patented algorithm or issues with the public domain
licensed files.
I will try to carefully review all files to make more
specific questions about the possible refactoring and/or
bundling of system libraries in the decoders, unpack, etc,
implementation files, but any early comment by you
(or Claudio :-) is welcome).
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -u -n)
Unless you plan to package to epel5, you must remove the
BuildRoot tag, and still, would be better to have the
buildroot tag only in the epel5 branch.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
Please do to a breakdown of the license in the spec. Usually
prefixing the license name as a comment before files in the
%files sections.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
Generic fedora-review output follows.
---%<---
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.
[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libxmp-
devel
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2 or later)
(with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL
(unversioned/unknown version)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 424 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/pcpa/957918-libxmp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 348160 bytes in 12 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918
--- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade ---
Issues:
1. Please provide some information of the data files in test/data.
Are all of them created for the sole purpose of test cases, otherwise
what is the source of them? At least the binary ones need some
information about origin.
2. test/md5.c and test/md5.h (and src/md5.{c,h}) have a restrictive text
license, is it linked to the library? (appears to be, besides not
being in objdump output)
3. Could be a good idea to move license information from docs/CREDITS
to a LICENSE file in the toplevel, but COPYING.LIB is also thre, so
not a big issue. I am particularly interested in information on this
entry in CREDITS:
---%<---
Powerpack depacker
ppcrack 0.1 - decrypts PowerPacker encrypted data files with brute force
by Stuart Caie , this software is in the Public Domain
---%<---
4. There are binaries in docs also, e.g. docs/st02-ok.sample.
I believe it would be easier to get the package included in Fedora
if the tarball was split in two, with data files in a secondary
tarball, and only the source code in the main one. It is really
bad that it would prevent running %check, but without some clear
information about origin of the data files it cannot be added
(unless FE-LEGAL approves it).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DI3JHk6JJo&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Claudio Matsuoka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cmatsu...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Claudio Matsuoka --- Thank you Paulo for the detailed review. MD5 digest code will be replaced upstream for a different version. Regarding item 3, PPdepack encryption code is currently disabled in source but these sections can also be removed altogether. I'll check other issues with Dominik and see the best way to address them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hhT88hQOID&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 --- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Spec URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libxmp.spec SRPM URL: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libxmp-4.1.4-1.fc20.src.rpm New upstream release: - md5.c had a bad license, I replaced it with a better implementation - removed the large regression test set completely (they're still checked before packaging and also in continuous integration, but the final distribution package has a simpler test) - removed the "ok" sample - removed decryption code from ppdepack (it was already commented out, so I just deleted the comment block). I addressed the comments about BuildRoot and licensing breakdown. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XC3o8SacE4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #5 from Paulo Andrade ---
There are several embedded chunks for different kinds of
decoders. License is clean and I am not aware of any possible
patent problems (e.g. codecs)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents
The package only implements "historic" formats. I do not
think I have enough authority to say it is ok for Fedora,
I am almost sure it is, but lifting FE-LEGAL, now that it
has been cleaned after removal of most of the test cases
(and binary test input files) from the main tarball.
Non legal issues below.
The -devel package should have
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
instead of
%{name} = %{version}-%{release}
I believe the embedded "mini" gzip, xz, etc decoders
are ok due to very small code and most of those do not
have a related devel/runtime library anyway.
Upstream may be interested on these:
o The fnmatch implementation is linked in, but in the final
library, the symbol used comes from glibc, maybe fnmatch.{c,h}
belongs to src/win32 ?
o Not sure if this warnings is generated on systems other
than rawhide (4.8.0):
gcc -c -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wall
-Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Wno-unused-result -Wno-array-bounds
-DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DHAVE_SYS_TYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_STAT_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1
-DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_MEMORY_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_INTTYPES_H=1
-DHAVE_STDINT_H=1 -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_ALLOCA_H=1 -DHAVE_LIBM=1
-DHAVE_POPEN=1 -DHAVE_MKSTEMP=1 -DHAVE_FNMATCH=1 -D_REENTRANT -Iinclude -Isrc
-fPIC -o src/loaders/emod_load.lo src/loaders/emod_load.c
src/loaders/it_load.c: In function 'it_load':
src/loaders/it_load.c:691:15: warning: iteration 108u invokes undefined
behavior [-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
c = i1h.keys[25 + j * 2] - 1;
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9nlpY5Gq1T&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Depends On|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Nothing obvious stands out as a legal concern here. Lifting FE-Legal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xwJ8zEtXFv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Paulo Andrade ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #6)
> Nothing obvious stands out as a legal concern here. Lifting FE-Legal.
Thanks!
The package is approved. Just do not forget to correct the -devel
package to require %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FSZtyOHlfW&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Thanks a lot for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libxmp Short Description: Owners: rathann Branches: f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ObdDthQlxD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FVQ5RXbmhu&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- No description provided, please correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nUsidcTkmS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libxmp Short Description: A multi-format module playback library Owners: rathann Branches: f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=30puTjvCmy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZSPmJ2Q3jI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iB6ip94Mzv&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||983774 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bkmTeCzB2t&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
