Bug 2308903

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7960594
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2308903-crust-firmware/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07960594-crust-firmware/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD or GPLv2'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Updated the license for SPDX:

SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/crust-firmware.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/crust-firmware-0.6-2.fc40.src.rpm

Created attachment 2045125 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7960594 to 7960596

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7960596
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2308903-crust-firmware/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07960596-crust-firmware/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-3-clause or GPL-2.0-only'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Because or in capitals makes all the difference apparently

SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/crust-firmware.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/crust-firmware-0.6-3.fc40.src.rpm

Created attachment 2045126 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7960596 to 7960598

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7960598
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2308903-crust-firmware/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07960598-crust-firmware/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

There is one header file that is MIT Licensed crust-0.6/include/stdlib/ctype. I do not believe that it changes the licensing of the package, and its use is covered by the LICENSE.md file. Approved 



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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 1-Clause
     License and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License,
     Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2",
     "MIT License", "BSD 1-Clause License". 44 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dennis/2308903-crust-
     firmware/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[ ]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/crust-
     firmware/crust/archive/refs/tags/crust-0.6.tar.gz
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: crust-firmware-0.6-3.fc41.noarch.rpm
          crust-firmware-0.6-3.fc41.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpriu_u5qb')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

crust-firmware.noarch: E: spelling-error ('managemenet', '%description -l en_US managemenet -> management, engagement')
crust-firmware.src: E: spelling-error ('managemenet', '%description -l en_US managemenet -> management, engagement')
crust-firmware.noarch: W: no-documentation
crust-firmware.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause
crust-firmware.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

crust-firmware.noarch: E: spelling-error ('managemenet', '%description -l en_US managemenet -> management, engagement')
crust-firmware.noarch: W: no-documentation
crust-firmware.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Requires
--------
crust-firmware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
crust-firmware:
    crust-firmware



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2308903
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/crust-firmware