https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

as@php.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

as@php.net changed:

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

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You must irstall the licences files with %license in %files, and you should install the README with %doc:

%files %license COPYING %doc README.md

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You need to BR gcc:

+ waf configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib64 --includedir=/usr/include Setting top to : /builddir/build/BUILD/termbox-1.1.2 Setting out to : /builddir/build/BUILD/termbox-1.1.2/build Checking for 'gcc' (C compiler) : not found Checking for 'clang' (C compiler) : not found Checking for 'icc' (C compiler) : not found Checking for 'c_bgxlc' (C compiler) : not found Checking for 'c_emscripten' (C compiler) : not found Checking for 'c_nec' (C compiler) : not found could not configure a C compiler!

- You need to set default build flags (which includes -g):

%set_build_flags waf configure \ --prefix=%{_prefix} \ --libdir=%{_libdir} \ --includedir=%{_includedir}

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. [!]: 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 is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/termbox/review-termbox/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %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. [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 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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [-]: 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 termbox- devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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. [-]: %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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: termbox-1.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm termbox-devel-1.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm termbox-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm termbox-debugsource-1.1.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm termbox-1.1.2-1.fc32.src.rpm termbox.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses termbox.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic termbox-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation termbox.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses termbox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review

Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com's needinfo: Bug 1752158: Review Request: termbox - Legacy-free alternative to ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

--- Comment #6 from as@php.net --- Updated. Note the original author is no longer maintaining and the repo URL has changed from nsf/termbox to termbox/termbox. The new repo has a simpler build (no waf) and one small bugfix. ABI version is unchanged.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/termbox/termbox/rpm/termbox.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/termbox/termbox/blob/rpm/termbox-1.1.4-1.fc33.src.rpm?raw...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/termbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

as@php.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(as@php.net) |

--- Comment #10 from as@php.net --- There is a new non-compat version of this library[0] that supersedes this one. We can file a new request for that package in the future if needed. OK by me to close this ticket/package. Apologies.

[0] https://github.com/termbox/termbox2/