Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
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
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=147302346
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.
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.
(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?
> Ok I will consolidate them in libreoffice-dict-es-ES subpackage. I think it should be just libreoffice-dict-es
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
Created attachment 2148002 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10677368 to 10695260
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.
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
Created attachment 2152230 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10695260 to 10760684
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.
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?
(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
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.
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
Created attachment 2154226 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10841968 to 10844822
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.
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
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.
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.