Spec URL: https://www.carmenbianca.eu/reuse.spec SRPM URL: https://www.carmenbianca.eu/reuse-0.3.3-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Tool by the FSFE for automating compliance with the initiatives listed at <https://reuse.software/>. Fedora Account System Username: carmenbianca I'm not yet sponsored. Bug 1644268 is another package I've submitted.
Ah, I forgot to mention: I have listed CC-BY-SA-4.0 as licence, but it's not actually listed on the wiki page as a "good licence": <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main> I've asked the devel mailing list about this, but I thought I'd submit the package regardless.
- CC-BY-SA-4.0 The shorthand should be CC-BY-SA - Group is not used in Fedora - Consider using %py3_dist for your dependencies, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_requires_and_buildrequires_with_standardized_names 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: "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v4.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/reuse/review-reuse/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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [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: reuse-0.3.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm reuse-0.3.3-1.fc30.src.rpm reuse.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C REUSE reuse.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter reuse.noarch: W: invalid-license CC-BY-SA-4.0 reuse.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://git.fsfe.org/reuse/reuse HTTP Error 404: Not Found reuse.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary reuse reuse.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C REUSE reuse.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter reuse.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY-SA-4.0 reuse.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://git.fsfe.org/reuse/reuse HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Hi Robert-André, Thanks for your quick and detailed review. I have updated the spec and srpm at the links to include your suggestions except: (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > - CC-BY-SA-4.0 The shorthand should be CC-BY-SA <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main> says that CC-BY-SA is shorthand for CC-BY-SA-3.0. I'd like it doubly confirmed if CC-BY-SA can be shorthand for _both_, though that would be rather not-very-ideal.
(In reply to Carmen Bianca Bakker from comment #3) > Hi Robert-André, > > Thanks for your quick and detailed review. I have updated the spec and srpm > at the links to include your suggestions except: > LGTM, package approved. > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > > - CC-BY-SA-4.0 The shorthand should be CC-BY-SA > > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main> says that CC-BY-SA is > shorthand for CC-BY-SA-3.0. I'd like it doubly confirmed if CC-BY-SA can be > shorthand for _both_, though that would be rather not-very-ideal. From Tom answer to your mail: The 4.0 version of the Creative Commons licenses are as good as the 3.0 versions. I have updated the links to the CC licenses to point to the 4.0 revision, no change in License tag in package spec files is required. ~tom You still need to find a sponsor.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4) > LGTM, package approved. Thanks! > > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > > > - CC-BY-SA-4.0 The shorthand should be CC-BY-SA > > > > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main> says that CC-BY-SA is > > shorthand for CC-BY-SA-3.0. I'd like it doubly confirmed if CC-BY-SA can be > > shorthand for _both_, though that would be rather not-very-ideal. > > From Tom answer to your mail: > > The 4.0 version of the Creative Commons licenses are as good as the 3.0 > versions. I have updated the links to the CC licenses to point to the > 4.0 revision, no change in License tag in package spec files is required. Should I update the licence to point to `CC-BY-SA` instead of `CC-BY-SA-4.0` now?
(In reply to Carmen Bianca Bakker from comment #5) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4) > > LGTM, package approved. > > Thanks! > > > > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > > > > - CC-BY-SA-4.0 The shorthand should be CC-BY-SA > > > > > > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main> says that CC-BY-SA is > > > shorthand for CC-BY-SA-3.0. I'd like it doubly confirmed if CC-BY-SA can be > > > shorthand for _both_, though that would be rather not-very-ideal. > > > > From Tom answer to your mail: > > > > The 4.0 version of the Creative Commons licenses are as good as the 3.0 > > versions. I have updated the links to the CC licenses to point to the > > 4.0 revision, no change in License tag in package spec files is required. > > Should I update the licence to point to `CC-BY-SA` instead of `CC-BY-SA-4.0` > now? Yes.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6) > > Should I update the licence to point to `CC-BY-SA` instead of `CC-BY-SA-4.0` > > now? > > Yes. Done :-) Might take a few minutes for the website to pick up the changes.
What's the status here? The package is approved, and the packager has been sponsored, and the license issues have been cleared.
I'll see about getting this into Fedora over the next couple of days. Had been busy with many other tasks as well. Thanks for the reminder.
I'm sorry for the spam: $ fedpkg request-repo reuse 1653010 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago
Reaaproved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/reuse
reuse-0.3.4-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-55150e63b0
reuse-0.3.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-55150e63b0
reuse-0.3.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.