SPDX Statistics - Please Please Me edition

[Miroslav Suchý]

Hot news:

SPDX did a new release of license list with 43 new licenses. Most of them were added thank to Fedora maintainers
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/releases

Two weeks ago we had:
> 23711spec files in Fedora
>
> 30306license tags in all spec files
>
> 11542 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet
>
> 5193 tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`
>
> Progress: 61,92% ░░░░░░████ 100%
>
> ELN subset:
>
> 217 out of 2766 packages are not converted yet (progress 92.15%)

Today we have:

* 23737spec files in Fedora

* 30335license tags in all spec files

* 11314 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet

* 5105 tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

* Progress: 62,70% ░░░░░░████ 100%

ELN subset:

128 out of 2412 packages are not converted yet (progress 94.69%)

Graph of these data with the burndown chart:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rp...

The list of packages needed to be converted is here:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-fi...

List by package maintainers is here

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-fi...

List of packages from ELN subset that needs to be converted:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt

New version of fedora-license-data has been released. With:
     14 new licenses (plus some public domain declarations).
     20 licenses are waiting to be review by SPDX.org (and then to be added to fedora-license-data) 
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/?label_name%5B%...

Legal docs and especially

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

was updated too.

License analysis of remaining packages: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spdx-reports/

New projection when we will be finished is 2025-01-17 (+12 days from last report).  Pure linear approximation.

If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog entry mentioning SPDX and you know your license 
tag matches SPDX formula, you can put your package on ignore list

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt

Either pull-request or direct email to me is fine.

Why Please Please Me edition? On this day, in 1963 Beatles got the first place in UK music chart for the first time. It 
was their first album. They decided to record it after a success of their single. So they recorded 10 additional songs 
(in one day) and album Please Please Me was born. It stayed in the chart for almost a year until Beatles recorded next 
album. This was surprising as before this album the charts were occupied by movie songs and easy listening song for 
adults and not for teenagers. Follow the rabbit hole:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me

Miroslav

[Richard Hughes]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:07, Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> 23711 spec files in Fedora

I was looking through the list for any of my packages, and I've found
that I'm "maintaining" long dead packages like
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/GConf2

According to that I have "commit" ACLs, but I couldn't find any way to
relinquish those using the web UI. I suppose I could contact the "main
admin" of the package, but I don't think that would scale as I've also
got "commit" on ~250 other packages.

If the SPDX listing isn't using src.fedoraproject.org and instead
using something like bugzilla please yell. Being listed as maintaining
all those also makes the packager-dashboard basically useless for me
too. :)

RIchard.

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 09:54, Richard Hughes  wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:07, Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> > 23711 spec files in Fedora
>
> I was looking through the list for any of my packages, and I've found
> that I'm "maintaining" long dead packages like
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/GConf2
>
> According to that I have "commit" ACLs, but I couldn't find any way to
> relinquish those using the web UI. I suppose I could contact the "main
> admin" of the package, but I don't think that would scale as I've also
> got "commit" on ~250 other packages.
>
> If the SPDX listing isn't using src.fedoraproject.org and instead
> using something like bugzilla please yell. Being listed as maintaining
> all those also makes the packager-dashboard basically useless for me
> too. :)

I wonder if you have it from a group you are in or if it was the general
creep of time that has added you to a lot of packages?

[Richard Hughes]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 15:44, Stephen Smoogen  wrote:
> I wonder if you have it from a group you are in or if it was the general creep of time that has added you to a lot of packages?

I'm a packager and a provenpackager, so I'm a bit confused why I'm on
so many packages as a separate committer. I've been at Red Hat for a
loooong time, so it might be various things being imported from cvs
for example. I also see alexl is in the same boat as me.

Is there any automated way to drop these? e.g. a git repo with ACLs
that I could send a patch for?

Richard.

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 09:44, Richard Hughes  wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 15:44, Stephen Smoogen  wrote:
> > I wonder if you have it from a group you are in or if it was the general
>
> creep of time that has added you to a lot of packages?
>
> I'm a packager and a provenpackager, so I'm a bit confused why I'm on
> so many packages as a separate committer. I've been at Red Hat for a
> loooong time, so it might be various things being imported from cvs
> for example. I also see alexl is in the same boat as me.
>
> Is there any automated way to drop these? e.g. a git repo with ACLs
> that I could send a patch for?

I think it is all stored in the pagure database and would need to be
removed with either direct database commands or something similar. This
might be better to ask in a releng ticket so they can give direct answers.
> Richard.
>
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:51:34PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:07, Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> > 23711 spec files in Fedora
>
> I was looking through the list for any of my packages, and I've found
> that I'm "maintaining" long dead packages like
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/GConf2

Should this package be retired?

Zbyszek

[Ben Beasley]

Going purely by upstream support status, yes, GConf2 should be retired; 
it’s been obsolete for a decade.

Going by dependent packages, it’s not so simple. Some of these 
dependencies are no doubt spurious, optional, or otherwise “removable;” 
others are real hard dependencies from outdated-but-still-useful 
application packages.

$ repoquery --repo=rawhide -q --whatrequires GConf2 --recursive
GConf2-devel-0:3.2.6-41.fc40.i686
GConf2-devel-0:3.2.6-41.fc40.x86_64
GtkAda-devel-0:2.24.2-48.fc40.i686
GtkAda-devel-0:2.24.2-48.fc40.x86_64
GtkAda-gnome-0:2.24.2-48.fc40.i686
GtkAda-gnome-0:2.24.2-48.fc40.x86_64
alexandria-0:0.7.9-7.fc40.noarch
apcupsd-gui-0:3.14.14-31.fc40.x86_64
cbrpager-0:0.9.22-31.fc40.x86_64
ccgo-0:0.3.6.5-22.fc40.x86_64
cdcollect-0:0.6.0-42.fc40.x86_64
fantasdic-0:1.0-0.25.beta7.fc40.noarch
gconf-editor-0:3.0.1-29.fc40.x86_64
gconfmm26-0:2.28.3-72.fc40.i686
gconfmm26-0:2.28.3-72.fc40.x86_64
gconfmm26-devel-0:2.28.3-72.fc40.i686
gconfmm26-devel-0:2.28.3-72.fc40.x86_64
giver-0:0.1.8-38.fc40.x86_64
gnome-desktop-sharp-devel-0:2.26.0-49.fc40.i686
gnome-desktop-sharp-devel-0:2.26.0-49.fc40.x86_64
gnome-do-0:0.95.3-27.fc40.x86_64
gnome-do-devel-0:0.95.3-27.fc40.i686
gnome-do-devel-0:0.95.3-27.fc40.x86_64
gnome-phone-manager-0:0.69-45.fc40.x86_64
gnome-sharp-0:2.24.2-34.fc40.x86_64
gnome-sharp-devel-0:2.24.2-34.fc40.i686
gnome-sharp-devel-0:2.24.2-34.fc40.x86_64
gnome-translate-0:0.99-43.fc39.x86_64
gnome-vfs2-0:2.24.4-45.fc40.i686
gnome-vfs2-0:2.24.4-45.fc40.x86_64
gnome-vfs2-common-0:2.24.4-45.fc40.noarch
gnome-vfs2-devel-0:2.24.4-45.fc40.i686
gnome-vfs2-devel-0:2.24.4-45.fc40.x86_64
gnome-vfs2-monikers-0:2.15.3-37.fc40.x86_64
gnome-vfs2-smb-0:2.24.4-45.fc40.x86_64
gphotoframe-0:2.0.2-24.hg2084299dffb6.fc40.noarch
grhino-0:0.16.1-19.fc40.x86_64
gtk-sharp-beans-0:2.14.0-35.fc40.x86_64
gtk-sharp-beans-devel-0:2.14.0-35.fc40.i686
gtk-sharp-beans-devel-0:2.14.0-35.fc40.x86_64
icedtea-web-0:1.8.8-4.fc40.x86_64
icedtea-web-devel-0:1.8.8-4.fc40.noarch
icedtea-web-javadoc-0:1.8.8-4.fc40.noarch
ignuit-0:2.24.3-16.fc40.x86_64
libbonoboui-0:2.24.5-25.fc39.i686
libbonoboui-0:2.24.5-25.fc39.x86_64
libbonoboui-devel-0:2.24.5-25.fc39.i686
libbonoboui-devel-0:2.24.5-25.fc39.x86_64
libgnome-0:2.32.1-30.fc40.i686
libgnome-0:2.32.1-30.fc40.x86_64
libgnome-devel-0:2.32.1-30.fc40.i686
libgnome-devel-0:2.32.1-30.fc40.x86_64
libgnomeui-0:2.24.5-32.fc40.i686
libgnomeui-0:2.24.5-32.fc40.x86_64
libgnomeui-devel-0:2.24.5-32.fc40.i686
libgnomeui-devel-0:2.24.5-32.fc40.x86_64
librawstudio-0:2.1-0.35.20210527.gitc140a5e.s20231112gitc753388.fc40.i686
librawstudio-0:2.1-0.35.20210527.gitc140a5e.s20231112gitc753388.fc40.x86_64
librawstudio-devel-0:2.1-0.35.20210527.gitc140a5e.s20231112gitc753388.fc40.i686
librawstudio-devel-0:2.1-0.35.20210527.gitc140a5e.s20231112gitc753388.fc40.x86_64
linsmith-0:0.99.33-7.fc40.x86_64
mail-notification-0:5.4-111.git.9ae8768.fc40.x86_64
mono-addins-devel-0:1.3.3-6.fc40.i686
mono-addins-devel-0:1.3.3-6.fc40.x86_64
mono-tools-0:4.2-30.fc40.x86_64
mono-tools-devel-0:4.2-30.fc40.i686
mono-tools-devel-0:4.2-30.fc40.x86_64
mono-tools-gendarme-0:4.2-30.fc40.x86_64
mono-tools-monodoc-0:4.2-30.fc40.x86_64
monodevelop-0:5.10.0-27.fc40.x86_64
monodevelop-debugger-gdb-0:5.0.1-16.fc40.x86_64
monodevelop-devel-0:5.10.0-27.fc40.i686
monodevelop-devel-0:5.10.0-27.fc40.x86_64
mtn-browse-0:1.20-18.fc40.noarch
pdfmod-0:0.9.1-32.fc40.x86_64
perl-Gnome2-0:1.048-12.fc40.x86_64
perl-Gnome2-GConf-0:1.047-12.fc40.x86_64
perl-Gnome2-VFS-0:1.084-12.fc40.x86_64
pinta-0:1.7.1-7.fc40.x86_64
rawstudio-0:2.1-0.35.20210527.gitc140a5e.s20231112gitc753388.fc40.x86_64
ruby-bonoboui2-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-bonoboui2-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.i686
ruby-bonoboui2-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-gconf2-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-gconf2-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.i686
ruby-gconf2-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-gnome2-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-gnome2-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.i686
ruby-gnome2-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-gnomevfs-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-gnomevfs-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.i686
ruby-gnomevfs-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-libglade2-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
ruby-libglade2-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.i686
ruby-libglade2-devel-0:0.90.4-19.fc40.x86_64
sirius-0:0.8.0-46.fc40.x86_64
teg-0:0.12.0-7.fc40.x86_64
tomboy-0:1.15.9-20.fc40.x86_64
tomboy-devel-0:1.15.9-20.fc40.i686
tomboy-devel-0:1.15.9-20.fc40.x86_64
tomoe-gtk-devel-0:0.6.0-44.fc40.i686
tomoe-gtk-devel-0:0.6.0-44.fc40.x86_64
ucview-0:0.33-27.fc40.i686
ucview-0:0.33-27.fc40.x86_64
ucview-devel-0:0.33-27.fc40.i686
ucview-devel-0:0.33-27.fc40.x86_64
ufraw-0:0.23-0.17.20210425.fc39.x86_64
ufraw-common-0:0.23-0.17.20210425.fc39.x86_64
ufraw-gimp-0:0.23-0.17.20210425.fc39.x86_64
verbiste-gnome-0:0.1.48-3.fc40.x86_64
wallpapoz-0:0.6.2-16.fc40.noarch
xoo-0:0.8-23.fc40.x86_64

Looking only at direct dependencies:

$ fedrq wrsrc -s GConf2
GtkAda-2.24.2-48.fc40.src
alexandria-0.7.9-7.fc40.src
apcupsd-3.14.14-31.fc40.src
cdrdao-1.2.5-9.fc40.src
evolution-rspam-0.6.0-43.fc40.src
florence-0.6.3-22.fc40.src
gconf-editor-3.0.1-29.fc40.src
gconfmm26-2.28.3-72.fc40.src
geany-plugins-2.0-3.fc40.src
gnome-do-0.95.3-27.fc40.src
gnome-phone-manager-0.69-45.fc40.src
gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-45.fc40.src
gnome-vfs2-monikers-2.15.3-37.fc40.src
gphotoframe-2.0.2-24.hg2084299dffb6.fc40.src
gtksourceview2-2.11.2-42.fc40.src
ignuit-2.24.3-16.fc40.src
libgnome-2.32.1-30.fc40.src
libgnomeui-2.24.5-32.fc40.src
mail-notification-5.4-111.git.9ae8768.fc40.src
moserial-3.0.21-8.fc41.src
perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.047-12.fc40.src
rawstudio-2.1-0.35.20210527.gitc140a5e.s20231112gitc753388.fc40.src
redshift-1.12-21.fc40.src
ruby-gnome2-0.90.4-19.fc40.src
sugar-0.121-1.fc40.src
tomboy-1.15.9-20.fc40.src
ucview-0.33-27.fc40.src
xoo-0.8-23.fc40.src

On 2/27/24 12:38 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:51:34PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:07, Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> > > 23711 spec files in Fedora
> >
> > I was looking through the list for any of my packages, and I've found
> > that I'm "maintaining" long dead packages like
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/GConf2
>
> Should this package be retired?
> Zbyszek
>
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 26. 02. 24 v 15:51 Richard Hughes napsal(a):
> If the SPDX listing isn't using src.fedoraproject.org and instead
> using something like bugzilla please yell. Being listed as maintaining
> all those also makes the packager-dashboard basically useless for me
> too. 🙂

I am using a script:

https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities/blob/master/f/find-package-m...

And as you already found, it is using data from src.fedoraproject.org.