https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646

Danishka Navin danishka@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646

Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Hi,

while doing the review, I noted the font embedded is non free :

http://www.dafont.com/share-regular.font ( and the code speak of urbanfonts.com but the font is not there ).

The bundled sound is also under creative common license, but that's not clear of the version and type of CC ( http://www.freesound.org/people/junggle/sounds/29297/ ). Ie CC-BY-NC would not be ok.

There is also some bundled code ( sugargame ) and I think there is a missing requires on pygame.

And since there is bundled flag, I think a exception should be granted by FESCO : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Maintainers_Flags_Policy

Anyway :

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

Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/843646-sugar-india/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (i_know_india-2.xo) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues: [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/843646-sugar-india/licensecheck.txt [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: sugar-india-2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm sugar-india-2-2.fc17.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- sugar-india-2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

/usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python sugar

Provides -------- sugar-india-2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm:

sugar-india = 2-2.fc17

MD5-sum check ------------- http://download.sugarlabs.org/activities/4587/i_know_india-2.xo : MD5SUM this package : a323c992d2d9866a6073d98db0e77725 MD5SUM upstream package : a323c992d2d9866a6073d98db0e77725

Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 843646 External plugins:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646

--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- It seems the flag policy is not in effect, so that part should be good, even if I would prefer to have a 2nd opinion from FESCO.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646

Danishka Navin danishka@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |

--- Comment #4 from Danishka Navin danishka@gmail.com --- Michael,

Shall I proceed this bug?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646

Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646

Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |danishka@gmail.com, | |rosser.bjr@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(danishka@gmail.co | |m)

--- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Are you still interested in this review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646

--- Comment #8 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Okay, great.

According to https://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/addon/4587, the latest version is "7"; the package listed here is version "2". If you are interested in continuing the review, please update the package to the latest version.

Also please look through the package and identify any bundled code and libraries. Fedora policy no longer *requires* removing bundled libraries but it strongly encourages it if possible. If it's not possible through, you MUST add lines of the following form to your spec:

Provides: bundled(name) = version

Where "name" is the name of the bundled library and "version" the version (omit version if you cannot determine one). You MUST also update the License tag accordingly with the bundled licenses.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication...

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li...

Also, note that you can now replace "%{__python} ./setup.py build" with "%py2_build".

Please make these changes, and I will be happy to review.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646

Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2018-05-07 17:19:15

--- Comment #10 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Going to close this, since there was no response. Please open a new ticket if you'd like to re-submit the package.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.