Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888301 --- Comment #4 from Sebastien Jodogne <s.jodogne@xxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~jodogne/Orthanc/Fedora/orthanc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~jodogne/Orthanc/Fedora/orthanc-0.4.0-3.fc17.src.rpm Dear Antonio, Once again, thanks for your help ! :) I have just uploaded a new version of the package that should meet your concerns. > [!]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > Note: orthanc-0.4.0-2.fc17.spec should be orthanc.spec Fixed. > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > > There are two components differently licensed (according to the README file > included on package). > The 'License' tag for the rpm so should be 'GPLv3+ and BSD and MIT'. However > README file reports a > 'GPLv3 license with the OpenSSL exception' that seems not compatible with > GPLv3 (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main) > In my opinion, you should contact Fedora Project Legal > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Main) or wait other comments. Regarding the OpenSSL exception, I have sent a mail to the Legal mailing list: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2012-December/002051.html Regarding the BSD/MIT/... components, I understand that it is sufficient to write "GPLv3" since this corresponds to the licence to the Orthanc binaries: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F Please also note that the complete list of the third-party components inside Orthanc can be found in the Debian package: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/o/orthanc/orthanc_0.4.0-1/orthanc.copyright > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required This line has been removed. > [!]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > Note: orthanc-0.4.0-2.fc17.spec should be orthanc.spec > Rename .spec file: orthanc.spec Fixed. > Generic: > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > > orthanc-0.4.0-2.fc17.i686.rpm successfully builded by using mock. > orthanc-0.4.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm successfully builded by using rpmbuild. > In both cases, rpmlint shows this warning: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib. > I think it is related to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794777 Indeed, this problem stems from the installation of the Systemd service for Orthanc. I have spotted another package that has been accepted with the same warning, so I think it should be considered as a false positive: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871605 > [?]: Package functions as described. > rpm correctly installed, orthanc.service created, orthanc group created but > user must be added manually to it. Nice catch! Fixed. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > If exists, add the link to every patch otherwise at least include a comment > right above. Fixed. > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: orthanc-debuginfo-0.4.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm > orthanc-0.4.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm > orthanc-0.4.0-2.fc16.src.rpm > orthanc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) healthcare -> health care, > health-care, ethereal > orthanc.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/orthanc orthanc > orthanc.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/orthanc orthanc > orthanc.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/orthanc/db-v3 orthanc > orthanc.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/orthanc/db-v3 orthanc > orthanc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) healthcare -> health care, > health-care, ethereal > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. In my humble opinion, these warnings are false positives. Indeed, according to an online dictionary, "healthcare" does exist: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/healthcare For the UID/GID problem, I think it is a good practice to introduce a user and a group that hold the data of the server, with the appropriate permissions. > In > %pre [...] 'exit 0' is omitted at the end. Why ? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging%3aUsersAndGroups Cut and paste problem... Fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=X3kj5xrSXs&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review