https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973084 --- Comment #15 from Marcin.Dulak@xxxxxxxxx --- (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #14) > Package is fine now, except for License-Tag in spec: > > 's!BSD$!& with advertising!' the /usr/share/doc/htmlcleaner-2.2.1/licence.txt file looks to me closer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD The modification are: - range of <YEAR-YEAR> instead of <YEAR> - a disclaimer at the bottom of the file saying: "You can contact Vladimir Nikic by sending e-mail to nikic_vladimir@xxxxxxxxx. Please include the word "HtmlCleaner" in the subject line." It's right that 13 files do not contain license header, but why changing the license to "BSD with advertising"? > ##### > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass > [!] = Fail > [-] = Not applicable > [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > htmlcleaner-javadoc > > ---> false positive, see comment #11 > > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/973084-htmlcleaner/licensecheck.txt > > ---> see above: 's!BSD!& with advertising!' > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. > [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) > for the package is included in %doc. > [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist > [x]: Package is not relocatable. > [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one > supported primary architecture. > [x]: Package installs properly. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > > Java: > [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils > Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is > pulled in by maven-local > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc > subpackage > [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils > [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) > [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build > > Maven: > [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even > when building with ant > [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping > [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging > [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used > [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- > utils for %update_maven_depmap macro > [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun > [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [x]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [x]: Buildroot is not present > [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > [x]: Dist tag is present. > [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > > Java: > [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) > [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: htmlcleaner-2.2.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm > htmlcleaner-javadoc-2.2.1-2.fc20.noarch.rpm > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint htmlcleaner htmlcleaner-javadoc > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > htmlcleaner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > java > jpackage-utils > mvn(org.jdom:jdom) > > htmlcleaner-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > jpackage-utils > > > > Provides > -------- > htmlcleaner: > htmlcleaner > mvn(net.sourceforge.htmlcleaner:htmlcleaner) > > htmlcleaner-javadoc: > htmlcleaner-javadoc > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/htmlcleaner/htmlcleaner/htmlcleaner > v2.2.1/htmlcleaner-2.2.1-src.zip : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > d1f045efff57d266c94e6b87e6685c14d7fbec3aac648f6020cc69812fe0be31 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > d1f045efff57d266c94e6b87e6685c14d7fbec3aac648f6020cc69812fe0be31 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 973084 > > ##### > > Good work! Just fix the issue with license-tag (already mentioned in comment > #11) and package will be pristine. -- 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=hWiNu38H81&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review