Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/spyder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06488008-python-pyuca/python-pyuca.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/spyder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06488008-python-pyuca/python-pyuca-1.2-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Python implementation of the Unicode Collation Algorithm (UCA). It passes 100% of the UCA conformance tests for Unicode 5.2.0 (Python 2.7), Unicode 6.3.0 (Python 3.3+), Unicode 8.0.0 (Python 3.5+), Unicode 9.0.0 (Python 3.6+), and Unicode 10.0.0 (Python 3.7+) with a variable-weighting setting of Non-ignorable. Fedora Account System Username: gui1ty Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/spyder/build/6488008/
This is a new dependency for Spyder in the upcoming 6.x release. I'm currently looking into updating rawhide to the latest pre-release, 6.0.0a2 (RPM: 6.0.0~a2). The Copr build includes a fedora-review analysis.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-pyuca/2242026- python-pyuca/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. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-pyuca (description) [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 11348 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyuca-1.2-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-pyuca-1.2-1.fc38.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/tmpzlgu28n6')] checks: 31, packages: 2 =================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 6.6 s ================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jtauber/pyuca/archive/v1.2/pyuca-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 41a47aa598c152a52b1dc4aa210c6db62cc7f72d13cee2caee80841c3cc49e19 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 41a47aa598c152a52b1dc4aa210c6db62cc7f72d13cee2caee80841c3cc49e19 Requires -------- python3-pyuca (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pyuca: python-pyuca python3-pyuca python3.11-pyuca python3.11dist(pyuca) python3dist(pyuca) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242026 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Perl, Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Java, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107042796 b) license text at: https://github.com/jtauber/pyuca/blob/master/LICENSE-allkeys differs a little from ICU license text: https://spdx.org/licenses/ICU.html Would be helpful for legal to check this.
Thanks for the review. I agree, a license review for the ICU license is needed. SPDX Diff gave me a ~70% match. Should I sent a mail to fedora-legal mailinglist or will this be picked up automatically since it blocks the tracker bug?
I had a look at pyuca/allkeys*.txt. They all contain a link in the header to the Unicode Terms of Use (http://www.unicode.org/terms_of_use.html), which redirects to https://www.unicode.org/copyright.html. In there, they refer to Unicode Data Files and Software License: https://www.unicode.org/license.txt However none of the Unicode-* licenses is a perfect match and even when I diff the license.txt, the SPDX License Diff plugin I use in my browser, still suggests ICU is the closest match. I'm afraid the license needs to be added akin to Unicode-DFS-2016 (https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-DFS-2016.html) if it's permissible at all. :sigh:
File an issue at https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues
Yes, please file a Fedora License Data issue. What are likely similar Unicode issues have come up in review of other packages and in some cases we have concluded that the license is inoperative or is not really the Unicode ToU.
(In reply to Richard Fontana from comment #7) > Yes, please file a Fedora License Data issue. What are likely similar > Unicode issues have come up in review of other packages and in some cases we > have concluded that the license is inoperative or is not really the Unicode > ToU. It seems the license referred to (in the files themselves) has already been submitted for review by Miroslav Suchý as Unicode License v3 (https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/314). It's currently pending OSI approval and SPDX identifier assignment. However the license text in `LICENSE-alltext` (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jtauber/pyuca/v1.2/LICENSE-allkeys) does not match the license text submitted by Miroslav (https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2105#issuecomment-1701165975). It's missing the first and the fourth paragraph. So, if Unicode License v3 makes it into SPDX, what needs to be done about `LICENSE-alltext`? Or, since the situation for `pyuca` is a bit murky, should I submit a separate license review request, anyway?
(In reply to Sandro from comment #8) > However the license text in `LICENSE-alltext` > (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jtauber/pyuca/v1.2/LICENSE-allkeys) does > not match the license text submitted by Miroslav > (https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2105#issuecomment- > 1701165975). It's missing the first and the fourth paragraph. So, if Unicode > License v3 makes it into SPDX, what needs to be done about `LICENSE-alltext`? s/LICENSE-alltext/LICENSE-allkeys/g I'm getting confused already...
The latest version of the data files seems to be under v3 license: https://www.unicode.org/Public/UCA/latest/allkeys.txt May need to check for license text associated with each allkeys.txt release from Unicode consortium and/or Internet Archive Wayback Machine. The license text does not have an "or later" clause.
Formal license review submitted. Seeing all the different `allkeys*.txt` files with different dates, referring to different versions of the Unicode license, this will be fun. ;-)
Based on the feedback from legal I've submitted https://github.com/jtauber/pyuca/pull/28 and am currently waiting on upstream to respond. Based on the feedback in https://github.com/jtauber/pyuca/issues/27 I'm rather confident this will be merged in due time. Is it an option to proceed with this review applying the PR as a patch? It seems pretty clear that all the Unicode character encodings are governed by the Unicode-3.0 license with legal even suggesting that "mere character encodings ought not be seen as requiring a license".[1] [1] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/379#note_1798472528
Ping? The proposed update to the spec file and the resulting SRPM: Spec URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyuca.spec SRPM URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyuca-1.2-2.fc41.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7165359 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2242026-python-pyuca/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07165359-python-pyuca/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
This is no longer blocking Legal. I'd like to proceed. This is the last hurdle for releasing Spyder 6.0.0a4.
Thanks for following up on the license.
Thanks for the review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyuca
FEDORA-2024-b3b28f8702 (python-pyuca-1.2-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-b3b28f8702
FEDORA-2024-b3b28f8702 (python-pyuca-1.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-c552c1b9fd (python-cmap-0.2.0-1.fc40, python-pyconify-0.1.6-1.fc40, and 5 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c552c1b9fd
FEDORA-2024-c552c1b9fd has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-c552c1b9fd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c552c1b9fd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-c552c1b9fd (python-cmap-0.2.0-1.fc40, python-pyconify-0.1.6-1.fc40, and 5 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.