[Bug 2314109] New: Review Request: vim-surround - Delete/change/add parentheses/quotes/XML-tags/much more with ease
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
Bug ID: 2314109 Summary: Review Request: vim-surround - Delete/change/add parentheses/quotes/XML-tags/much more with ease Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dick@mrns.nl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/meeuw/vim-surround/vim-surro... SRPM URL: https://mrns.nl/~meeuw/94d123cccca2dfea56e0f636578d8efb186c080fa934221f3837e... Description: Delete/change/add parentheses/quotes/XML-tags/much more with ease Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/tpope/vi | |m-surround
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8056800 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Vim and MIT'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- fedora-review-service-build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #3 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8091457 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Vim and MIT'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/meeuw/vim-surround/vim-surro... SRPM URL: https://mrns.nl/~meeuw/1c93ad7479429d76e965e3d50d3f7a58d1e4a1c13fa4fd3eed6dd... Description: Delete/change/add parentheses/quotes/XML-tags/much more with ease Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #5 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2049926 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2049926&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8091457 to 8098581
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8098581 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Vim AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only OR Vim) AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND OPUBL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception'. 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vondruch@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- Please consider adding AppData for gnome-software. The upstream documentation is here:
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Addon.html
Some real examples might be found here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-fugitive/tree/rawhide https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-commentary/tree/rawhide
However, the Vim metadata are likely broken ATM due to [1], so there might be needed some changes. Specifically, the `<extends>gvim.desktop</extends>` should be probably changed to `<extends>org.vim.Vim</extends>` and the `<id>` tag should use rDNS identifier, as specified in the documentation.
[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim/pull-request/25
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #9 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- It would also likely made sense to update the VIM documentation:
~~~ %post vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null
%postun
%{vimfiles_root}/doc/tags
vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null ~~~
And yes, please consider usage of the `%{vimfiles_root}` provided by the vim-filesystem. Not sure if there is some equivalent for neovim.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #10 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #9)
It would also likely made sense to update the VIM documentation:
%post vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null %postun > %{vimfiles_root}/doc/tags vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null
Ah, sorry. I have forgotten Vim already ships `%transfiletriggerin` / `%transfiletriggerpostun` which should take care about the refresh, so please disregard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/meeuw/vim-surround/vim-surro... SRPM URL: https://mrns.nl/~meeuw/912119722a66dc9510f8948d1400f91d77a74f11b6f0daeb80457... Description: Delete/change/add parentheses/quotes/XML-tags/much more with ease Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #11 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- Thanks for the suggestion to add AppData, I just added it in release 3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #12 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/vim-surround/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/vim-surround/fedora... Description: Delete/change/add parentheses/quotes/XML-tags/much more with ease Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2088394 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2088394&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8098581 to 8995956
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8995956 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'Vim AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only OR Vim) AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND OPUBL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception'. 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #15 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- About the above issue, README.markdown (https://github.com/tpope/vim-surround?tab=readme-ov-file#license) states the following:
Copyright (c) Tim Pope. Distributed under the same terms as Vim itself. See :help license.
I copied the SPDX expression from the vim package, I think this is a false-positive.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl has denied Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl's needinfo: Bug 2314109: Review Request: vim-surround - Delete/change/add parentheses/quotes/XML-tags/much more with ease https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dick@mrns.nl) |needinfo-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #17 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- (In reply to Dick Marinus from comment #15)
About the above issue, README.markdown (https://github.com/tpope/vim-surround?tab=readme-ov-file#license) states the following:
Copyright (c) Tim Pope. Distributed under the same terms as Vim itself. See :help license.
I copied the SPDX expression from the vim package, I think this is a false-positive.
The output suggest to look into documentation, the specific place is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1#What_tools_vali...
And this is the verbose output:
~~~ $ license-validate "Vim AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only OR Vim) AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND OPUBL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception" -v License: Vim AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND MIT AND GPL-1.0-only AND (GPL-2.0-only OR Vim) AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND OPUBL-1.0 AND Apache-2.0 WITH Swift-exception Warning: OPUBL-1.0 is not-allowed license OPUBL-1.0 can be used under this condition: Allowed-for documentation if the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI
These packages are known to use this OPUBL-1.0 license as an exception: ['vim'] Uses not-allowed license. ~~~
IOW `OPUBL-1.0` is possibly problematic. It would be nice to find where the exception was approved and how relevant is this for this plugin.
BTW I have bad experience with statements like "Distributed under the same terms as Vim itself." The thing is that Vim might change their terms any time and then it is not clear how it impact SW which claims it is "Distributed under the same terms". Are those the old terms, new terms, both. Is the claim time bound? I would suggest to discuss this with upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #18 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- BTW, also is the intention of the statement to really copy every license? That sounds weird to me ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2314109
--- Comment #19 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- How about using "Vim" as a license?
This seems to be done by the following packages:
# dnf repoquery --queryformat "%{name} %{license}\n" *vim* |grep ' Vim$' Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. vim-commentary Vim vim-ctrlp Vim vim-fugitive Vim vim-javabrowser Vim vim-latex Vim vim-latex-doc Vim vim-pathogen Vim vim-rhubarb Vim vim-taglist Vim
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com