Bug 2314109

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8056800
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2314109-vim-surround/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08056800-vim-surround/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Vim and MIT'. 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.

fedora-review-service-build

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8091457
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2314109-vim-surround/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08091457-vim-surround/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Vim and MIT'. 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.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Created attachment 2049926 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8091457 to 8098581

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8098581
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2314109-vim-surround/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08098581-vim-surround/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Vim AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only OR Vim) AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND OPUBL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception'.
  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.

Please consider adding AppData for gnome-software. The upstream documentation is here:

https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Addon.html

Some real examples might be found here:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-fugitive/tree/rawhide
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-commentary/tree/rawhide

However, the Vim metadata are likely broken ATM due to [1], so there might be needed some changes. Specifically, the `<extends>gvim.desktop</extends>` should be probably changed to `<extends>org.vim.Vim</extends>` and the `<id>` tag should use rDNS identifier, as specified in the documentation.


[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim/pull-request/25

It would also likely made sense to update the VIM documentation:

~~~
%post
vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null

%postun
> %{vimfiles_root}/doc/tags
vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null
~~~

And yes, please consider usage of the `%{vimfiles_root}` provided by the vim-filesystem. Not sure if there is some equivalent for neovim.

(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #9)
> It would also likely made sense to update the VIM documentation:
> 
> ~~~
> %post
> vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null
> 
> %postun
> > %{vimfiles_root}/doc/tags
> vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null
> ~~~


Ah, sorry. I have forgotten Vim already ships `%transfiletriggerin` / `%transfiletriggerpostun` which should take care about the refresh, so please disregard.

Thanks for the suggestion to add AppData, I just added it in release 3.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/vim-surround/fedora-42-x86_64/08768656-vim-surround/vim-surround.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/vim-surround/fedora-42-x86_64/08768656-vim-surround/vim-surround-2.2-3.fc42.src.rpm
Description: Delete/change/add parentheses/quotes/XML-tags/much more with ease
Fedora Account System Username: meeuw

Created attachment 2088394 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8098581 to 8995956

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8995956
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2314109-vim-surround/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08995956-vim-surround/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Vim AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only OR Vim) AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND OPUBL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception'.
  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.

About the above issue, README.markdown (https://github.com/tpope/vim-surround?tab=readme-ov-file#license) states the following:

> Copyright (c) Tim Pope. Distributed under the same terms as Vim itself. See :help license.

I copied the SPDX expression from the vim package, I think this is a false-positive.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

(In reply to Dick Marinus from comment #15)
> About the above issue, README.markdown
> (https://github.com/tpope/vim-surround?tab=readme-ov-file#license) states
> the following:
> 
> > Copyright (c) Tim Pope. Distributed under the same terms as Vim itself. See :help license.
> 
> I copied the SPDX expression from the vim package, I think this is a
> false-positive.

The output suggest to look into documentation, the specific place is here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1#What_tools_validate_the_License_field?

And this is the verbose output:

~~~
$ license-validate "Vim AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only OR Vim) AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND OPUBL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception" -v
License: Vim AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only OR Vim) AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND OPUBL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception
Warning: OPUBL-1.0 is not-allowed license
OPUBL-1.0 can be used under this condition:
Allowed-for documentation if the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI

These packages are known to use this OPUBL-1.0 license as an exception: ['vim']
Uses not-allowed license.
~~~

IOW `OPUBL-1.0` is possibly problematic. It would be nice to find where the exception was approved and how relevant is this for this plugin.

BTW I have bad experience with statements like "Distributed under the same terms as Vim itself." The thing is that Vim might change their terms any time and then it is not clear how it impact SW which claims it is "Distributed under the same terms". Are those the old terms, new terms, both. Is the claim time bound? I would suggest to discuss this with upstream.

BTW, also is the intention of the statement to really copy every license? That sounds weird to me ...

How about using "Vim" as a license?

This seems to be done by the following packages:

# dnf repoquery --queryformat "%{name} %{license}\n"  *vim* |grep ' Vim$'
Updating and loading repositories:
Repositories loaded.
vim-commentary Vim
vim-ctrlp Vim
vim-fugitive Vim
vim-javabrowser Vim
vim-latex Vim
vim-latex-doc Vim
vim-pathogen Vim
vim-rhubarb Vim
vim-taglist Vim