SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/clearsilver/clearsilver-0.10.5-78.fc44.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/clearsilver/clearsilver.spec Description: ClearSilver is a fast, powerful, and language-neutral HTML template system. In both static content sites and dynamic HTML applications, it provides a separation between presentation code and application logic which makes working with your project easier. The design of ClearSilver began in 1999, and evolved during its use at onelist.com, egroups.com, and Yahoo! Groups. Today many other projects and websites are using it.
Clearsilver was retired almost 2 years ago due to FTBFS. I've fixed that and would like to bring it back into Fedora and build for EPEL-10.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9877347 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2419403-clearsilver/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09877347-clearsilver/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - License file CS_LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clearsilver Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
# both packages have /usr/bin/cs Conflicts: python-cs This should be python3-cs now.
Are the following conditionals excluding Fedora on purpose? %if 0%{?rhel} > 7 %if 0%{?rhel} > 4 If yes, perhaps they should be `%if 0%{?rhel}`. If not, perhpoas they should be removed entirely.
This is also a bit archaic: # java does not build on x86_64 %ifarch %{ix86} ppc alpha Perhaps let's remove all the java bits of the spec file, if that's so?
Thanks, addressed all of the above. SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/clearsilver/clearsilver-0.10.5-79.fc44.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/clearsilver/clearsilver.spec
Created attachment 2117661 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9877347 to 9877852
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9877852 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2419403-clearsilver/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09877852-clearsilver/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - License file CS_LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clearsilver Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
Thanks. I see some other smells like %doc LICENSE (instead of %license LICENSE) and %defattr(-,root,root,-) Probably also with looking into using %make_build and %make_install (however, not sure if those are mandatory). I also highly recommend making patch 7 a -p1 patch and switching to %autosetup. Is there anything to be put into %check, even a simple smoke test? ----- Fedora review flagged: - Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ The perl-clearsilver package depends on libperl.so.5.42()(64bit), so I think this satisfies the condition. - 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. Note: License file CS_LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text That's what I already noticed. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clearsilver See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names This is an unretirement review, so we are good. rpmlint noticed: clearsilver.src: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') clearsilver.src: E: spelling-error ('onelist', '%description -l en_US onelist -> one list, one-list, elision') clearsilver.src: E: spelling-error ('egroups', '%description -l en_US egroups -> groups, regroups, e groups') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('onelist', '%description -l en_US onelist -> one list, one-list, elision') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('egroups', '%description -l en_US egroups -> groups, regroups, e groups') perl-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') perl-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', '%description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') ruby-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') ruby-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', '%description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') All false positives. clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cs clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cs_static.cgi clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cstest I don't really care about those. clearsilver.spec: W: no-%check-section That would be nice. clearsilver.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/clearsilver/INSTALL That should probably be removed from %doc.
Thanks. Addressed all of the above, same URLs.
The specfile seems sane but I am not sure about the license. licensecheck.txt by the review service mentions: Apache License 1.1 ------------------ clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/CS_LICENSE FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) ---------------------------------------------- clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/aclocal.m4 FSF Unlimited License [generated file] -------------------------------------- clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/configure GNU General Public License v2.0 or later ---------------------------------------- clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/util/regex/regex.c clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/util/regex/regex.h GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file] --------------------------------------------------------- clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/config.guess clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/config.sub GNU General Public License, Version 2 ------------------------------------- clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/perl/README GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0 [generated file] ---------------------------------------------------------------- clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/ruby/install.rb Obviously, the build scripts are OK, but what about util/regex/regex.c and .h? I don't have time to inspect this today more closely. Anybody else feel free to take this review.
1. The newest release is 0.11.0, do you have plan to update to 0.11.0? see: https://github.com/blong42/clearsilver 2. > GNU General Public License v2.0 or later > ---------------------------------------- > clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/util/regex/regex.c > clearsilver-0.10.5-build/clearsilver-0.10.5/util/regex/regex.h The util/regex/regex.c and .h files are GPL-2.0-or-later, but it seems that it is not compiled into binary package. so it should be excluded. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_source_package_files_not_included_in_binary_rpm
0.11.0 requires streamhtmlparser, which appears to be dead upstream and would need at very least porting of scripts from Python 2 to 3 to build. I will likely discuss that with upstream but the current priority is getting this working version back into Fedora and EPEL-10.
I will take this review. If you are feeling charitable, I could use a review of bug 2423780. It's OCaml, so I won't be offended if that scares you off.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The license concerns me. It is not an exact match for Apache-1.1. This page: https://spdx.org/licenses/Apache-1.1.html shows text that can be omitted in blue, and text that can be replaced in red. The Neotonic ClearSilver license has changes other than the permitted omissions and replacements. Indeed, using the SPDX tool to match licenses: https://tools.spdx.org/app/check_license/ does not return Apache 1.1 as a match. It only returns Entessa Public License v1.0 as a "near match". I think we need to follow the License Review Process: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/ I expect that either SPDX will modify the allowed omissions and replacements to match this license, or they will create a new identifier for it. As noted above, util/regex/regex.{c,h} are not used in the build, so their license can be disregarded. - According to perl/README, the perl subpackage license should be: GPL-2.0-only OR [whatever the Neotonic ClearSilver license turns out to be] - According to ruby/install.rb, the ruby subpackage license should be: LGPL-2.0-only (because "Lesser" is 2.0, and "Library" is 2.1). - The license files are only in the main package. None of the subpackages Require the main package, so they can be installed alone, without the license files. - Some build warnings point to potential buffer overflows. For example: ClearSilver.xs: In function ‘XS_ClearSilver__CS_parseString’: ClearSilver.xs:447:13: warning: ‘__builtin___strcpy_chk’ writing one too many bytes into a region of a size that depends on ‘strlen’ [-Wstringop-overflow=] 447 | strcpy(cs_str, in_str); | ^ ClearSilver.xs:442:30: note: destination object of size [0, 2147483647] allocated by ‘malloc’ 442 | cs_str = (char *)malloc(len); | ^ In that code, we find the length of in_str with strlen, malloc space for that many bytes in cs_str, then call strcpy to copy in_str to cs_str. But this fails to account for the null terminator, with the result that strcpy is going to write a zero byte one byte beyond the end of cs_str. This code should probably just call strdup, but failing that, len+1 bytes should be malloc'ed instead of len bytes. - This package includes a static library, and no shared library. The Packaging Guidelines call for avoiding static libraries when possible: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Is there a reason why a static library is required in this case? If not, some effort should be expended to provide a shared library instead. I can help with that, if you like. - Please consider adding ExcludeArch: %{ix86}. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval - Can anything at all be done in %check, just to verify basic functionality? - Not an issue, just a suggestion: the modern equivalent of `find ... -exec rm -f {} ';'` is `find ... -delete`. It's easier to read and, according to the find man page, less prone to race conditions. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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: "Apache License 1.1", "Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0 [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 405 files have unknown license. See above. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. The license files are only in the main package. None of the subpackages Require the main package, so they can be installed alone, without the license files. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [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 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]: 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: clearsilver-devel. [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 2488 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in clearsilver-devel , perl-clearsilver , ruby-clearsilver This is fallout from providing a static library instead of a shared library. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. As described above, the latest version cannot be packaged at present. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Some have explanations, but several do not. [-]: 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. [!]: %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 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: clearsilver-0.10.5-79.fc44.x86_64.rpm clearsilver-devel-0.10.5-79.fc44.x86_64.rpm perl-clearsilver-0.10.5-79.fc44.x86_64.rpm ruby-clearsilver-0.10.5-79.fc44.x86_64.rpm clearsilver-0.10.5-79.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8m2te7b8')] checks: 32, packages: 5 clearsilver.src: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') clearsilver.src: E: spelling-error ('onelist', '%description -l en_US onelist -> one list, one-list, elision') clearsilver.src: E: spelling-error ('egroups', '%description -l en_US egroups -> groups, regroups, e groups') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('onelist', '%description -l en_US onelist -> one list, one-list, elision') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('egroups', '%description -l en_US egroups -> groups, regroups, e groups') perl-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') perl-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', '%description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') ruby-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') ruby-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', '%description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cs clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cs_static.cgi clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cstest clearsilver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation perl-clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-documentation ruby-clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-documentation clearsilver.spec: W: no-%check-section 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 7 warnings, 16 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: clearsilver-debuginfo-0.10.5-79.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmprexwdfa8')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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: 5 perl-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') perl-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', '%description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('onelist', '%description -l en_US onelist -> one list, one-list, elision') clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('egroups', '%description -l en_US egroups -> groups, regroups, e groups') ruby-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', 'Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') ruby-clearsilver.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('templating', '%description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting') clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cs clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cs_static.cgi clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cstest perl-clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-documentation clearsilver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ruby-clearsilver.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 6 warnings, 29 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 1.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- perl-clearsilver: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/ClearSilver/ClearSilver.so ruby-clearsilver: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/hdf.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.clearsilver.net/downloads/clearsilver-0.10.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1e9da038deafddd3d0c1c510626c28be5a0f4f17b9091d577fd30e7c5ba88680 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1e9da038deafddd3d0c1c510626c28be5a0f4f17b9091d577fd30e7c5ba88680 Requires -------- clearsilver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) clearsilver-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl-clearsilver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libperl.so.5.42()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.42.0) perl(:VERSION) perl(DynaLoader) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-libs rtld(GNU_HASH) ruby-clearsilver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libruby.so.3.4()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- clearsilver: clearsilver clearsilver(x86-64) clearsilver-devel: clearsilver-devel clearsilver-devel(x86-64) clearsilver-static perl-clearsilver: clearsilver-perl perl(ClearSilver) perl-clearsilver perl-clearsilver(x86-64) ruby-clearsilver: clearsilver-ruby ruby-clearsilver ruby-clearsilver(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2419403 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Perl, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Ruby, Haskell, Java, Python, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you, I'll take that review. I don't speak OCaml, but I can read a little. ;)
I submitted the license review: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/713 I'll look at the other issues in the interim.
SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/clearsilver/clearsilver-0.10.5-80.fc44.src.rpm SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/clearsilver/clearsilver.spec Addressed everything but the static lib, which I think is OK as there's no support for a shared lib, and the outcome of the license issue is that it's close enough to Apache-1.1.
Created attachment 2121565 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9877852 to 9988329
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9988329 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2419403-clearsilver/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09988329-clearsilver/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clearsilver Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
Sorry for the silence. I just got back from vacation a few days ago and have been slowly catching up on things. Okay, I am satisfied with the license and static library situations. However, as noted in comment 15, I think the license of the perl subpackage should be: License: GPL-2.0-only OR Apache-1.1 See perl/README. Please fix that when you import. This package is APPROVED.
Excellent, thank you!
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13168