Spec URL: https://github.com/ArrayBolt3/sword_fedora_packaging/raw/master/sword.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/ArrayBolt3/sword_fedora_packaging/raw/master/sword-1.9.0-22.fc40.src.rpm Description: The SWORD Project is the CrossWire Bible Society's free Bible software project. Its purpose is to create cross-platform open-source tools-- covered by the GNU General Public License-- that allow programmers and Bible societies to write new Bible software more quickly and easily. We also create Bible study software for all readers, students, scholars, and translators of the Bible, and have a growing collection of over 200 texts in over 50 languages. Fedora Account System Username: arraybolt3 Additional information: This package was retired recently. I am attempting to unretire it and become its maintainer.
This is the first package I'm trying to take maintainership of, so I will need a sponsor.
Aaaand it needs unretired. Sorry, bug tracker is confusing and instructions are long :P
One thing I should mention, I am aware that the package is *not* installing the manpages for the SWORD utilities currently. The reason for this is because the CMake build system in SWORD doesn't appear to have a mechanism for installing the manpages (I checked, couldn't find any options to do so), the manpages are NOT installed by default when using CMake that I can tell (I tried adding them to the spec file and it caused a build failure specifying that all the manpages couldn't be found), and as I want to get this reintroduced to Fedora 39, I didn't want to make overly invasive changes like modding the buildsystem more than necessary or switching to the Autotools build system provided alongside. I intend to resolve this in Rawhide, but I'm not sure if it can or should be resolved in F39. That being said, I'm not overly familiar with all of the processes in Fedora, so if I'm off track here, let me know and I'll see if I can make the manpages install too, if necessary.
Taking this review.
Initial spec review: > %global pkg_version 1.9.0 This seems redundant to %version? Do you need this? > BuildRequires: cmake-data This is not needed, as cmake-data is pulled in by cmake > BuildRequires: libicu-devel icu Please avoid putting multiple dependencies on a single line, as that makes it difficult to diff later when changes happen. > Patch0: cmake-perl-bindings.diff > Patch1: migrate-to-setuptools.diff While not required, stylistically usually these lines are right below Source lines. Feel free to choose to move it or keep as-is. > %setup -q > > %patch -P0 -p1 -b .perl > %patch -P1 -p1 This can be replaced with "%autosetup -p1" > find %{buildroot} -type f -name "*.la" -delete -print Does this CMake build even produce libtool archives? If not, this can be dropped. > %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog LICENSE NEWS README "COPYING" and "LICENSE" need to be listed as "%license", like so: %license COPYING LICENSE > # Re-enable after upstream includes it with CMake builds > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/sword.conf This comment makes no sense? What's it for? > %{_datadir}/sword Please put a trailing slash here to ensure RPM knows to track it as a directory. > %{perl_vendorarch}/* This glob is too greedy and needs to be scoped tighter, similar to the Python one.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > Initial spec review: > > > %global pkg_version 1.9.0 > > This seems redundant to %version? Do you need this? Doesn't appear so, dropped and adjusted the place that used it to use %{version} instead. > > BuildRequires: cmake-data > > This is not needed, as cmake-data is pulled in by cmake Dropped. > > BuildRequires: libicu-devel icu > > Please avoid putting multiple dependencies on a single line, as that makes > it difficult to diff later when changes happen. Fixed. > > Patch0: cmake-perl-bindings.diff > > Patch1: migrate-to-setuptools.diff > > While not required, stylistically usually these lines are right below Source > lines. Feel free to choose to move it or keep as-is. Makes sense, moved. > > %setup -q > > > > %patch -P0 -p1 -b .perl > > %patch -P1 -p1 > > This can be replaced with "%autosetup -p1" Done. > > find %{buildroot} -type f -name "*.la" -delete -print > > Does this CMake build even produce libtool archives? If not, this can be > dropped. Dropped, seems to work and I can't find any .la files in the resulting RPMs (though I didn't check the debug info RPMs). > > %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog LICENSE NEWS README > > "COPYING" and "LICENSE" need to be listed as "%license", like so: > > %license COPYING LICENSE Done. > > # Re-enable after upstream includes it with CMake builds > > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/sword.conf > > This comment makes no sense? What's it for? I... have no idea :P The original maintainer of SWORD in Fedora was also an upstream developer, so I'm guessing he was leaving himself a note? In any event the actual line of code seems sensible, but I'm leery of dropping the comment in the event something happens in the upstream code that reminds me of this and helps me make a change. I'll ask the original maintainer about it when I get the chance. > > %{_datadir}/sword > > Please put a trailing slash here to ensure RPM knows to track it as a > directory. Done. > > %{perl_vendorarch}/* > > This glob is too greedy and needs to be scoped tighter, similar to the > Python one. Are you sure? I can scope this tighter, but according to the Perl Packaging Guidelines at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/, > a arch-specific Perl package must own: > > # For arch-specific packages: vendorarch > %{perl_vendorarch}/* > %exclude %dir %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/ The links in the description should point to the updated files.
(In reply to Aaron Rainbolt from comment #6) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > > > %{perl_vendorarch}/* > > > > This glob is too greedy and needs to be scoped tighter, similar to the > > Python one. > > Are you sure? I can scope this tighter, but according to the Perl Packaging > Guidelines at > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/, > > > a arch-specific Perl package must own: > > > > # For arch-specific packages: vendorarch > > %{perl_vendorarch}/* > > %exclude %dir %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/ > This may be Perl guidelines being out of sync with the main ones. The main guidelines state this is too greedy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists
Makes sense to me. I did see the explicit lists instructions but thought perhaps the Perl ones overrode that (as the Perl instructions say "must" and the general ones only say "should"). At any rate, pushed another update with the more tightly scoped glob.
(In reply to Aaron Rainbolt from comment #8) > Makes sense to me. I did see the explicit lists instructions but thought > perhaps the Perl ones overrode that (as the Perl instructions say "must" and > the general ones only say "should"). At any rate, pushed another update with > the more tightly scoped glob. It's probably better to follow the Perl guidelines for now on this for that subpackage.
+1, reverted the last changes.
> %{python3_sitearch}/sword-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info This should have a trailing slash.
Done. Also I did a bit of auditing of the paths and added trailing slashes to a couple other places that appeared to need it.
Found another line that had multiple dependencies listed on the same line and got them split into multiple lines for better readability.
> %setup -q > > %autosetup -p1 You should drop the first, since the second does everything the first does.
Fixed, now it's just `%autosetup -p1`.
> %{?perl_provide:%perl_provide perl-sword} This macro doesn't exist and has never existed, so this would be a no-op. Drop it please.
Sheesh, I thought that since this package was in Fedora at first that it would be in better shape than this. Sorry that the review keeps bouncing back and forth, I'll know better for next time. The no-op %perl_provide macro has been dropped. I also noticed a redundancy in the Python subpackage (use of both %python_provide and %py_provides), so I dropped the apparently older and less versatile one (%python_provide) and kept the other one.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Boost Software License 1.0", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "zlib License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 694 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2241414-sword/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 135178 bytes in 15 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]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [!]: 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. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sword-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm sword-devel-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm sword-utils-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm python3-sword-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm perl-sword-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm sword-debuginfo-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm sword-debugsource-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm sword-1.9.0-22.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpxcys0364')] checks: 31, packages: 8 sword.spec:97: E: rpm-buildroot-usage %build -DSWORD_PYTHON_INSTALL_ROOT="%{buildroot}" \ sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary addld sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary diatheke sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary emptyvss sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imp2gbs sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imp2ld sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imp2vs sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary installmgr sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mkfastmod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mod2imp sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mod2osis sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mod2vpl sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mod2zmod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osis2mod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tei2mod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vpl2mod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vs2osisref sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vs2osisreftxt sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2gbs perl-sword.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-sword.x86_64: W: no-documentation sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation sword-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on sword*/sword-libs/libsword* = 1:1.9.0 sword.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: sword-1.9.0.tar.gz 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 23 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 2.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sword-debuginfo-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm sword-utils-debuginfo-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpcyebh_sh')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 checks: 31, packages: 8 sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary addld sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary diatheke sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary emptyvss sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imp2gbs sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imp2ld sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imp2vs sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary installmgr sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mkfastmod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mod2imp sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mod2osis sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mod2vpl sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mod2zmod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary osis2mod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tei2mod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vpl2mod sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vs2osisref sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vs2osisreftxt sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2gbs python3-sword.x86_64: W: no-documentation perl-sword.x86_64: W: no-documentation sword-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation sword-devel.x86_64: W: missing-dependency-on sword*/sword-libs/libsword* = 1:1.9.0 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 6.5 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-sword: /usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/_Sword.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so perl-sword: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Sword/Sword.so Requires -------- sword (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(sword) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclucene-core.so.1()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libicui18n.so.73()(64bit) libicuuc.so.73()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sword-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config clucene-core-devel curl-devel libicu-devel libsword.so.1.9()(64bit) pkgconfig sword(x86-64) sword-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libicuuc.so.73()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libsword.so.1.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sword(x86-64) python3-sword (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libsword.so.1.9()(64bit) python(abi) python3 rtld(GNU_HASH) sword(x86-64) perl-sword (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libperl.so.5.38()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libsword.so.1.9()(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.38.0) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(base) perl(overload) perl(vars) perl-HTML-Strip perl-XML-LibXML perl-interpreter perl-libs rtld(GNU_HASH) sword(x86-64) sword-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sword-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sword: config(sword) libsword.so.1.9()(64bit) sword sword(x86-64) sword-devel: pkgconfig(sword) sword-devel sword-devel(x86-64) sword-utils: sword-utils sword-utils(x86-64) python3-sword: python-sword python3-sword python3-sword(x86-64) python3.12-sword python3.12dist(sword) python3dist(sword) perl-sword: perl(Sword) perl(Sword::AttributeListMap) perl(Sword::AttributeTypeListMap) perl(Sword::AttributeValueMap) perl(Sword::BasicFilterUserData) perl(Sword::DirEntry) perl(Sword::DirEntryVector) perl(Sword::EncodingFilterMgr) perl(Sword::FileDesc) perl(Sword::FileMgr) perl(Sword::GBFHTMLHREF) perl(Sword::InstallMgr) perl(Sword::InstallSource) perl(Sword::InstallSourceMap) perl(Sword::LZSSCompress) perl(Sword::ListKey) perl(Sword::LocaleMgr) perl(Sword::MarkupCallback) perl(Sword::MarkupFilterMgr) perl(Sword::ModuleMap) perl(Sword::MyMarkup) perl(Sword::OSISData) perl(Sword::OSISHTMLHREF) perl(Sword::PyOSISHTMLHREF) perl(Sword::PySectionMap) perl(Sword::PyStringMgr) perl(Sword::PyThMLHTMLHREF) perl(Sword::RawCom) perl(Sword::RawGenBook) perl(Sword::RawLD) perl(Sword::RawLD4) perl(Sword::RawStr) perl(Sword::RawStr4) perl(Sword::RawText) perl(Sword::RawVerse) perl(Sword::RemoteTransport) perl(Sword::RenderCallback) perl(Sword::ReturnSuccess) perl(Sword::SWBasicFilter) perl(Sword::SWBuf) perl(Sword::SWClass) perl(Sword::SWCom) perl(Sword::SWCompress) perl(Sword::SWConfig) perl(Sword::SWDisplay) perl(Sword::SWFilter) perl(Sword::SWFilterMgr) perl(Sword::SWGenBook) perl(Sword::SWKey) perl(Sword::SWLD) perl(Sword::SWLocale) perl(Sword::SWLog) perl(Sword::SWMgr) perl(Sword::SWModule) perl(Sword::SWObject) perl(Sword::SWOptionFilter) perl(Sword::SWSearchable) perl(Sword::SWSearcher) perl(Sword::SWText) perl(Sword::SWVersion) perl(Sword::SW_POSITION) perl(Sword::StatusReporter) perl(Sword::StringList) perl(Sword::StringMgr) perl(Sword::StringVector) perl(Sword::ThMLData) perl(Sword::ThMLHTMLHREF) perl(Sword::TreeKey) perl(Sword::TreeKeyIdx) perl(Sword::URL) perl(Sword::UTF8HTML) perl(Sword::VerseKey) perl(Sword::VerseTreeKey) perl(Sword::VersificationMgr) perl(Sword::XMLTag) perl(Sword::ZipCompress) perl(Sword::abbrev) perl(Sword::sbook) perl(Sword::zCom) perl(Sword::zLD) perl(Sword::zStr) perl(Sword::zText) perl(Sword::zVerse) perl(Swordc) perl-sword perl-sword(x86-64) sword-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsword.so.1.9-1.9.0-22.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) sword-debuginfo sword-debuginfo(x86-64) sword-debugsource: sword-debugsource sword-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241414 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Perl, Python, C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Ocaml, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Created attachment 1991659 [details] licensecheck.txt from fedora-review (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #18) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public > License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU > General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with > License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated > file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", > "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License > [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public > License v2.0 or later", "Boost Software License 1.0", "GNU Library > General Public License v2 or later", "zlib License", "FSF Unlimited > License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version > 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General > Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later > [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* Apache > License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 694 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/ngompa/2241414-sword/licensecheck.txt I've attached the output from licensecheck. Please double-check this against your enumerated list of license tags and ensure that your tags are correct for content *installed* by the binary RPMs. > [!]: 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 This just needs some comments to fulfill.
I did some double-checking for licenses I wasn't sure about, and the only files that are under licenses that are not listed in the License field are (as far as I am aware) build system files. Licensecheck appears to have misrecognized "Zlib", which is listed in the spec file in accordance with the expression from fedora-license-data. Worth noting as a licensecheck bug perhaps? Comments added to spec file for patches and tarball generation.
licensecheck comes from Debian, so I think it actually uses DEP-5 rationalized SPDX (which isn't *exactly* the same as mainline SPDX identifiers...). Aside from that, I think we're *finally* in good shape, so... PACKAGE APPROVED.
I have sponsored you as a packager. Welcome to Fedora, and I hope you enjoy contributing! Good luck and godspeed! :)
This package was never unretired after the new approval. Are you still interested in finalizing this?
Excuse me? The package was unretired AFAICT, I currently am maintaining it along with Xiphos and Bibletime (though there haven't been any new releases of any of those in a while so I've not had anything to do there), and it's present in the Fedora 40 repositories so it seems to be "there" now. Did someone miss a step I didn't know needed to be done?
As far as I can see the only step that was missed was closing this bug. :)
Ah, that makes sense. I guess I just didn't think to do it, and the documentation on the package review process seems to not mention it :P