Bug 2496419

Summary: Review Request: libreoffice-dictionaries - LibreOffice hunspell dictionaries
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Parag Nemade <pnemade>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jens Petersen <petersen>
Status: RELEASE_PENDING --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: i18n-bugs, package-review, petersen
Target Milestone: ---Flags: petersen: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
URL: https://github.com/LibreOffice/dictionaries
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 2510641    
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10677368 to 10695260
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10695260 to 10760684
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10841968 to 10844822 none

Description Parag Nemade 2026-07-02 10:01:15 UTC 
Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries-26.2.5.1-2.fc44.src.rpm
Upstream URL: https://github.com/LibreOffice/dictionaries

Description:
LibreOffice hunspell dictionaries.

Fedora Account System Username: pnemade
Comment 1 Parag Nemade 2026-07-02 10:01:23 UTC 
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147302346
Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2026-07-03 05:11:39 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10677368
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496419-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10677368-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file COPYING.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

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.
Comment 3 Jens Petersen 2026-07-03 05:53:44 UTC 
libreoffice-dict-an.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Aragonese', 'Summary(en_US) Aragonese -> Aragon')
libreoffice-dict-an.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Aragonese', '%description -l en_US Aragonese -> Aragon')

libreoffice-dict-bo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Tibetian', 'Summary(en_US) Tibetian -> Tibetan, Titian')
libreoffice-dict-bo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Tibetian', '%description -l en_US Tibetian -> Tibetan, Titian')

This ^^ is a typo

libreoffice-dict-es-CR.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Costa', 'Summary(en_US) Costa -> Hosta, Coats, Costs')
libreoffice-dict-es-CR.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Costa', '%description -l en_US Costa -> Hosta, Coats, Costs')

This ^ should be Costa Rica?

Though I am not convinced we should split all the Spanish dictionaries: it seems upstream doesn't?

libreoffice-dict-gl.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Galician', 'Summary(en_US) Galician -> Clinician, Galvanic, Alicia')
libreoffice-dict-gl.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Galician', '%description -l en_US Galician -> Clinician, Galvanic, Alicia')
libreoffice-dict-oc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Occitan', 'Summary(en_US) Occitan -> Occidental')
libreoffice-dict-oc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Occitan', '%description -l en_US Occitan -> Occidental')
libreoffice-dict-or.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Odia', 'Summary(en_US) Odia -> Odis, Odin, Zodiac')
libreoffice-dict-or.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Odia', '%description -l en_US Odia -> Odis, Odin, Zodiac')
libreoffice-dict-si.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Sinhala', 'Summary(en_US) Sinhala -> Sinhalese')
libreoffice-dict-si.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Sinhala', '%description -l en_US Sinhala -> Sinhalese')
libreoffice-dictionaries.src: E: spelling-error ('hunspell', 'Summary(en_US) hunspell -> Hunspell, unshapely')
libreoffice-dictionaries.src: E: spelling-error ('hunspell', '%description -l en_US hunspell -> Hunspell, unshapely')
libreoffice-dictionaries.spec: W: no-%check-section
libreoffice-dictionaries.spec: W: no-%check-section
libreoffice-dictionaries.spec: W: no-%check-section
libreoffice-dict-bg.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-bg/COPYING
libreoffice-dict-bn_BD.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-bn_BD/COPYING
libreoffice-dict-eo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/hunspell/eo.aff
libreoffice-dict-gd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/hunspell/gd_GB.aff
libreoffice-dict-hi.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-hi/COPYING
libreoffice-dict-hi.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-hi/Copyright
libreoffice-dict-kn.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dict-kn/README-kn_IN.txt
libreoffice-dict-lv.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dict-lv/README_lv_LV.txt
libreoffice-dict-mr.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-mr/COPYING
libreoffice-dict-oc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-oc/LICENCES-fr.txt
libreoffice-dict-pl.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dict-pl/README_pl.txt
libreoffice-dict-ro.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-ro/COPYING.GPL
libreoffice-dict-ro.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-ro/COPYING.LGPL
libreoffice-dict-sk.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-sk/LICENSE.txt
libreoffice-dict-te.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dict-te/README_te_IN.txt
 94 packages and 2 specfiles checked; 31 errors, 3 warnings, 351 filtered, 31 badness; has taken 15.4 s 

> Spec license: GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR MPL-1.1

Not sure if this is sufficient, though there is no binary base package.
Comment 4 Parag Nemade 2026-07-03 11:37:59 UTC 
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #3)
> libreoffice-dict-an.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Aragonese', 'Summary(en_US)
> Aragonese -> Aragon')
> libreoffice-dict-an.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Aragonese', '%description -l
> en_US Aragonese -> Aragon')

==> As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragonese_language, Aragonese is a language name.

> 
> libreoffice-dict-bo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Tibetian', 'Summary(en_US)
> Tibetian -> Tibetan, Titian')
> libreoffice-dict-bo.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Tibetian', '%description -l
> en_US Tibetian -> Tibetan, Titian')
> 
> This ^^ is a typo

==> As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Language, we can change this to "Tibetan".

> 
> libreoffice-dict-es-CR.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Costa', 'Summary(en_US)
> Costa -> Hosta, Coats, Costs')
> libreoffice-dict-es-CR.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Costa', '%description -l
> en_US Costa -> Hosta, Coats, Costs')
> 
> This ^ should be Costa Rica?

==> As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Costa_Rica 
Costa Rica's official and predominant language is Spanish. The variety spoken there, Costa Rican Spanish, is a form of Central American Spanish.
Similarly as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Spanish
Puerto Rican Spanish is the variety of the Spanish language as characteristically spoken in Puerto Rico.

> 
> Though I am not convinced we should split all the Spanish dictionaries: it
> seems upstream doesn't?

Ok I will consolidate them in libreoffice-dict-es-ES subpackage.

> 
> libreoffice-dict-gl.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Galician', 'Summary(en_US)
> Galician -> Clinician, Galvanic, Alicia')
> libreoffice-dict-gl.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Galician', '%description -l
> en_US Galician -> Clinician, Galvanic, Alicia')
> libreoffice-dict-oc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Occitan', 'Summary(en_US)
> Occitan -> Occidental')
> libreoffice-dict-oc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Occitan', '%description -l
> en_US Occitan -> Occidental')
> libreoffice-dict-or.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Odia', 'Summary(en_US) Odia
> -> Odis, Odin, Zodiac')
> libreoffice-dict-or.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Odia', '%description -l
> en_US Odia -> Odis, Odin, Zodiac')
> libreoffice-dict-si.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Sinhala', 'Summary(en_US)
> Sinhala -> Sinhalese')
> libreoffice-dict-si.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Sinhala', '%description -l
> en_US Sinhala -> Sinhalese')
> libreoffice-dictionaries.src: E: spelling-error ('hunspell', 'Summary(en_US)
> hunspell -> Hunspell, unshapely')
> libreoffice-dictionaries.src: E: spelling-error ('hunspell', '%description
> -l en_US hunspell -> Hunspell, unshapely')
> libreoffice-dictionaries.spec: W: no-%check-section
> libreoffice-dictionaries.spec: W: no-%check-section
> libreoffice-dictionaries.spec: W: no-%check-section
> libreoffice-dict-bg.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-bg/COPYING
> libreoffice-dict-bn_BD.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-bn_BD/COPYING
> libreoffice-dict-eo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/hunspell/eo.aff
> libreoffice-dict-gd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/hunspell/gd_GB.aff
> libreoffice-dict-hi.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-hi/COPYING
> libreoffice-dict-hi.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-hi/Copyright
> libreoffice-dict-kn.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dict-kn/README-kn_IN.txt
> libreoffice-dict-lv.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dict-lv/README_lv_LV.txt
> libreoffice-dict-mr.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-mr/COPYING
> libreoffice-dict-oc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-oc/LICENCES-fr.txt
> libreoffice-dict-pl.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dict-pl/README_pl.txt
> libreoffice-dict-ro.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-ro/COPYING.GPL
> libreoffice-dict-ro.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-ro/COPYING.LGPL
> libreoffice-dict-sk.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/libreoffice-dict-sk/LICENSE.txt
> libreoffice-dict-te.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dict-te/README_te_IN.txt
>  94 packages and 2 specfiles checked; 31 errors, 3 warnings, 351 filtered,
> 31 badness; has taken 15.4 s 
> 
> > Spec license: GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR MPL-1.1
> 
> Not sure if this is sufficient, though there is no binary base package.

Then we can concatenate all binary subpackage licenses and final tag will be
License: AGPL-3.0-only AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND (BSD-3-Clause OR CC-BY-3.0) AND BSD-3-Clause-Modification AND CC-BY-4.0 AND (CC-BY-4.0 or LGPL-3.0-only) AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND CC0-1.0 AND GFDL-1.2-invariants-or-later AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND (GPL-1.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later) AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND (GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later) AND (GPL-2.0-or-later OR GPL-3.0-or-later) AND (GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR MPL-1.1) AND (GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR MPL-1.1 OR Apache-2.0 OR CC-BY-SA-4.0) AND GPL-3.0-only AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND (GPL-3.0-or-later OR LGPL-3.0-or-later OR MPL-1.1) AND (GPL-3.0-or-later OR LGPL-3.0-or-later OR MPL-2.0) AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-only AND (LGPL-3.0-only OR MPL-1.1) AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND LPPL-1.3c AND MPL-1.1 AND MPL-2.0 AND NTP

Please suggest what should be the License used for this package?
Comment 5 Jens Petersen 2026-07-06 09:36:07 UTC 
> Ok I will consolidate them in libreoffice-dict-es-ES subpackage.

I think it should be just libreoffice-dict-es
Comment 6 Parag Nemade 2026-07-07 02:40:03 UTC 
Updated SPEC with some enhancements
- Consolidate all es-* subpackages into -es subpackage
- Add source rpm license tag as combined license of binary rpm packages

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries-26.2.5.1-3.fc44.src.rpm
Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2026-07-08 02:10:49 UTC 
Created attachment 2148002 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10677368 to 10695260
Comment 8 Fedora Review Service 2026-07-08 02:10:51 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10695260
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496419-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10695260-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file COPYING.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'AGPL-3.0-only AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND (BSD-3-Clause OR CC-BY-3.0) AND BSD-3-Clause-Modification AND CC-BY-4.0 AND (CC-BY-4.0 or LGPL-3.0-only) AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND CC0-1.0 AND GFDL-1.2-invariants-or-later AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-1.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only) AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only AND LGPL-2.1-only) AND (GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only) AND (GPL-2.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only OR MPL-1.1) AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND (GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR MPL-1.1) AND (GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR MPL-1.1 OR Apache-2.0 OR CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GPL-3.0-only AND (GPL-3.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only OR MPL-1.1) AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND (GPL-3.0-or-later OR LGPL-3.0-or-later OR MPL-1.1) AND (GPL-3.0-or-later OR LGPL-3.0-or-later OR MPL-2.0) AND LGPL-2.1-only AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-only AND MPL-1.1 AND LPPL-1.3c AND MPL-1.1 AND MPL-2.0 AND NTP'.
  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.
Comment 9 Parag Nemade 2026-07-22 05:45:05 UTC 
New upstream release

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries-26.8.0.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2026-07-22 05:56:58 UTC 
Created attachment 2152230 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10695260 to 10760684
Comment 11 Fedora Review Service 2026-07-22 05:57:01 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10760684
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496419-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10760684-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file LICENSE-dict is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

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.
Comment 12 Jens Petersen 2026-07-29 07:02:45 UTC 
I think overall it looks quite good, but a few more comments below

(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #11)
> Found issues:
> 
> - License file LICENSE-dict is not marked as %license

I noticed a few license files are listed in doc= fields instead of license_file.

My remaining suggestion would be to simplify the language table's fields,
since there is quite a lot of redundant metadata around the lang/locales.
I think a `dir` field (or `subdir` if you prefer) would help a lot for each language.

Also good to review the %install section and see if anything can be simplified there.

Can you confirm if you used licensecheck to cross-check the license tags?
Comment 13 Parag Nemade 2026-08-10 09:13:37 UTC 
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #12)
> I think overall it looks quite good, but a few more comments below
> 
> (In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #11)
> > Found issues:
> > 
> > - License file LICENSE-dict is not marked as %license
> 
> I noticed a few license files are listed in doc= fields instead of
> license_file.

Fixed this.

> 
> My remaining suggestion would be to simplify the language table's fields,
> since there is quite a lot of redundant metadata around the lang/locales.
> I think a `dir` field (or `subdir` if you prefer) would help a lot for each
> language.

Fixed this.

> 
> Also good to review the %install section and see if anything can be
> simplified there.

Removed all aliases but can't remove renaming of dictionary files to match with glibc locale names.

> 
> Can you confirm if you used licensecheck to cross-check the license tags?

I have tried my best to check all these license tags manually.

Please check this updated package and provide your review comments.

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries-26.8.0.2-1.fc44.src.rpm
Comment 14 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-10 09:25:09 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10841968
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496419-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10841968-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file COPYING.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

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.
Comment 15 Parag Nemade 2026-08-11 02:32:54 UTC 
Another update

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries-26.8.0.2-2.fc44.src.rpm
Comment 16 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-11 02:52:53 UTC 
Created attachment 2154226 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10841968 to 10844822
Comment 17 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-11 02:52:56 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10844822
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2496419-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10844822-libreoffice-dictionaries/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file COPYING.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

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.
Comment 18 Parag Nemade 2026-08-12 07:27:43 UTC 
Add back aliases

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/libreoffice-dictionaries-26.8.0.2-3.fc44.src.rpm
Comment 19 Jens Petersen 2026-08-19 05:49:53 UTC 
There are few dangling symlinks it seems:

libreoffice-dict-sr.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/hunspell/sh_ME.aff sh_RS
libreoffice-dict-sr.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/hunspell/sh_ME.dic sh_RS
libreoffice-dict-sr.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/hunspell/sh_RS.aff sh_RS
libreoffice-dict-sr.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/hunspell/sh_RS.dic sh_RS

Also better to remove the long white-space after the Farsi record

Otherwise LGTM

Package is APPROVED

Please fix the above when importing.
Comment 20 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-08-19 08:30:59 UTC 
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libreoffice-dictionaries
Monitoring:
Anitya project is accessible by this link 
`https://release-monitoring.org/project/391717`
 you can modify it manually.