Bug 2399984

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9624702
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399984-python-scspell3k/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09624702-python-scspell3k/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-only AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain AND WordNet'.
  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.

Some of the license need to be evaluated, will add links to relevant tickets.

https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/682
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/683

You should also open a request for validation of the various public-domain dedications described in SCOWL-LICENSE.txt, similar to https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/679. There are quite a few of these. Some, like the ENABLE word list public-domain dedication, are detailed and seem pretty clear-cut. Others are less so.

I’m not sure that I have time to dig through the license validation involved in reviewing this properly right now, but I’ll keep an eye on the fedora-license-data issues, and maybe I’ll be able to reconsider later.

Update license information



spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-scspell3k.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-scspell3k-2.3-1.fc42.src.rpm

Created attachment 2108204 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9624702 to 9635443

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9635443
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399984-python-scspell3k/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09635443-python-scspell3k/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-only AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain AND WordNet AND Advanced-Cryptics-Dictionary AND BSD-Mark-Modifications'.
  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.

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.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

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

Generic:
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-scspell3k-2.3-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          python-scspell3k-2.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqv_sba5n')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-scspell3k.src: E: spelling-error ('subtokens', '%description -l en_US subtokens -> sub tokens, sub-tokens, subteens')
python-scspell3k.src: E: spelling-error ('someVariable', '%description -l en_US someVariable -> some Variable, some-Variable, invariable')
python-scspell3k.src: E: spelling-error ('subtoken', '%description -l en_US subtoken -> sub token, sub-token, subteen')
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: spelling-error ('subtokens', '%description -l en_US subtokens -> sub tokens, sub-tokens, subteens')
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: spelling-error ('someVariable', '%description -l en_US someVariable -> some Variable, some-Variable, invariable')
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: spelling-error ('subtoken', '%description -l en_US subtoken -> sub token, sub-token, subteen')
python3-scspell3k.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scspell
python3-scspell3k.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell/__init__.py
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell/_corpus.py
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell/_portable.py
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell/_util.py
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell3k-2.3.dist-info/licenses/COPYING.txt
python-scspell3k.src: E: description-line-too-long typical naming conventions, this algorithm will usually catch many errors without
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: description-line-too-long typical naming conventions, this algorithm will usually catch many errors without
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 13 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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

python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: spelling-error ('subtokens', '%description -l en_US subtokens -> sub tokens, sub-tokens, subteens')
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: spelling-error ('someVariable', '%description -l en_US someVariable -> some Variable, some-variable, variable')
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: spelling-error ('subtoken', '%description -l en_US subtoken -> sub token, sub-token, subteen')
python3-scspell3k.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scspell
python3-scspell3k.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell/__init__.py
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell/_corpus.py
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell/_portable.py
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell/_util.py
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/scspell3k-2.3.dist-info/licenses/COPYING.txt
python3-scspell3k.noarch: E: description-line-too-long typical naming conventions, this algorithm will usually catch many errors without
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.1 s 


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/myint/scspell/archive/v2.3/scspell3k-2.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 76e783a70d61d0cac4edf953471902a85a9ca9f8991c2b52a08af10810d7e195
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 76e783a70d61d0cac4edf953471902a85a9ca9f8991c2b52a08af10810d7e195


Requires
--------
python3-scspell3k (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)

Provides
--------
python3-scspell3k:
    python-scspell3k
    python3-scspell3k
    python3.14-scspell3k
    python3.14dist(scspell3k)
    python3dist(scspell3k)

Some minor issues to consider:

 1) check contents and spelling in %description
 2) ping upstream about wrong FSF address in some files.


The is rest is fine, package is APPROVED.

> %files -n python3-scspell3k -f %{pyproject_files}
> %{_bindir}/scspell
Hmm, so is the primary purpose of this package the executable or the library?
If the executable, please drop the 'python{3,}-' prefixes and just have
a 'scspell3k' package.

Whether renamed or not, the package should also have Provides:scspell
to that 'dnf install scspell' works.

Standard pyproject packaging is used, so there isn't much to review,
apart from the package name, description, and license.


> License:        GPL-2.0-only AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain AND WordNet AND Advanced-Cryptics-Dictionary AND BSD-Mark-Modifications

This part of the license:
> Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell these word
> lists, the associated scripts, the output created from the scripts,
> and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
> provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
> that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
> supporting documentation. Kevin Atkinson makes no representations
> about the suitability of this array for any purpose. It is provided
> "as is" without express or implied warranty.

This isn't PD, I think it needs a ticket to be classified.

I think the rest of the licenses either listed in the current License
term, or are public domain (and are also covered by the LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain
term).

Benson, any comments?