https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2460052
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|45 |rawhide Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #11 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- (In reply to andrii.verbytskyi from comment #5) > Dear Ben, > > Many thanks for the suggestions. I've implemented them, however the license > issue is not very clear to me. > I've submitted a PR in the upstream with the explicit LICENSE file and it > was accepted https://github.com/dahlia/iso4217/pull/30, so I would assume > one can just create a LICENSE file in the spec manually. Thanks, this is starting to look better. ---- The LICENSE file is nice, but it’s not mandatory in this case. Please have a look at https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/work_items/728 for an example. Since public-domain declarations are not standardized and take many forms (and since in theory something that looks like a public-domain declaration might have other conditions attached that make it ineffective, although this is unusual), Fedora Legal asks that all public-domain dedications be submitted for review and recorded in the file public-domain-text.txt in the fedora-license-data package. 1. Create an issue (“work item”) on https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data, using the license review template, similar to the one I linked. Fill in all the applicable fields. 2. Ideally, create the MR to update public-domain-text.txt yourself, referencing your work item and imitating https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/838. 3. The dedication here is trivial, so you can expect that someone from Fedora Legal will mark it as approved within a couple of days or so. 4. Change the License field of this submission to LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain (you already did this), and ideally add a comment linking your fedora-license-data issue so it’s easy to see that the text has been submitted for review. ---- Since you passed “-l” to %pyproject_save_files, asserting that a license file is properly marked in the dist-info metadata, you don’t need to also install an additional copy in /usr/share/licenses/…: you can remove “%license LICENSE”. ---- If you are going to do this: echo "This software is released into the public domain." > LICENSE you should be able to cite where that exact dedication came from, either in the source code or in a PR that was merged upstream. In fact, this text doesn’t seem to match what was added upstream in https://github.com/dahlia/iso4217/commit/aa87a85494ff240a3faadfaa84eb832b8168d4df. (On preview, I see that you addressed this in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2460052#c8, above.) Consider something like this instead: # Add LICENSE file with Public Domain declaration Patch: %{url}/commit/aa87a85494ff240a3faadfaa84eb832b8168d4df.patch […] %autosetup -n %{srcname}-%{version} -p1 ---- A better source URL would be https://github.com/dahlia/iso4217/archive/%{version}/iso4217-%{version}.tar.gz, or %{url}/archive/%{version}/iso4217-%{version}.tar.gz if you prefer. That way, the archive name matches the extraction directory. At minimum, please use the %{version} macro instead of hard-coding the version number in the URL. ---- It seems like it ought to be possible to run the test suite. You should try to do this, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests. If there’s something stopping you, please document it in a spec-file comment. ---- Putting the %check section after %files doesn’t make anything work differently, but it hurts legibility. Consider putting it after %install instead. ---- The build has to work offline. Upstream’s setup.py downloads an XML data file at build time and installs it into the source tree as iso4217/table.xml. https://github.com/dahlia/iso4217/blob/7f4c46981f72b571f3f461b6e8d971db5a3e19ef/setup.py#L20-L52 This is the reason that the “Fedora Review Service” test build failed. You could probably work around this by including the data table as additional Source, manually copying it into the source tree in %prep, and exporting ISO4217_DOWNLOAD=0 before %pyproject_generate_buildrequires and before %pyproject_wheel. There’s a bigger problem, though: it’s not clear what license applies to the XML data file, https://www.six-group.com/dam/download/financial-information/data-center/iso-currrency/lists/list-one.xml. I found the link to this data file at https://www.six-group.com/en/products-services/financial-information/market-reference-data/data-standards.html#scrollTo=currency-codes, but it doesn’t clarify the license terms. The corresponding ISO standard page, https://www.iso.org/iso-4217-currency-codes.html, doesn’t help either: “free of charge” is not a license. In my opinion, this will need to be clarified before the package can be approved. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2460052 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202460052%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
