https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060841 --- Comment #7 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or > later)", > "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or > later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or > later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 192 files have unknown license. Meh. I hate licenses. I'm option to suggestion on what to do with the mix of gpl licenses. > 1. desktop-file-validate > %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop > > Please move this to %check section, because it's a validation process. I > hope you can understand my request here. The guidelines allow for it to be in either. I tend to reserve %check for actual unit testing of libraries or binary output. To me the failure of a correct desktop file is an install failure, not a code failure. > Also remove the slash: > > %{buildroot}/%{_datadir} Interesting, I didn't check this because I copied it directly from the GL.. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage > 2. It seems that a dead upstream library xmlrpcpp is bundled, in spite of > its dead upstream attribution is immutable, I still deem that you should > request an exception? Your idea is welcome. Well that's great... I'll ask upstream. > 3. Why upstream bundles gettext header? Can you cofirm with upstream? Ditto. > 4. Ask upstream to add license header. For the unknown files? -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review