https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459125 --- Comment #22 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to John Morris from comment #21) > Issues: > ======= > > [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > > *** These are suspicious: Start_page.html and freecad.{qch,qhc} > Start_page.html might be for the initial GUI. > freecad.{qch,qhc} are SQLite databases. Hmm... You may be right. I should probably move these to freecad-data (so they can stay noarch). > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) > or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 47902720 bytes in 6 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 47912960 bytes in /usr/share > freecad-0.13-5.fc21.i686.rpm:47912960 > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines > > *** This is the funny '/usr/share/doc/freecad/freecad.qch' file again, > 47MB Ok, I got some work to do here... It actually ends up in 3 places, once in the main package and twice in the docs package. > ------ > > - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains > desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. > Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in freecad > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- > database > > *** (from fedora-review tool) Fixed. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla > upstream sources. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) > (with > incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF > address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or > generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later) > (with > incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "ISC", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No > copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or > later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (with incorrect FSF > address)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", > "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 261 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/jman/tmp/freecad/licensecheck.txt > > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > *** This is confusing: > > - Software's 'copying.lib' says LGPLv2+ > > - Specfile says GPLv3+ (the only GPLv3 according to > licensecheck.txt is bison artifacts, which contain exceptions) > > - Otherwise, the most restrictive licenses found in > licensecheck.txt are GPLv2+ files; my guess is the specfile > should say GPLv2+. Fixed > [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > > *** This is a SHOULD item, in case a copy of the GPLv2+ license must > added by the package Ok, I'm not sure, am I supposed to do something here? > ----- > > [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in freecad- > data , freecad-doc > > *** Have %{name} = %{version}-%{release} but not %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release}; is this an issue? False alarm, you can't add an arch requirement to a noarch package, bad things happen. > ----- > > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > > *** No justification for any patches except the last; the first two > are obviously unbundling patches; how about patches 2 & 3? I've added some comments, they're probably not super helpful but patches 2-4 are to fix build issues that have cropped up over time. FreeCAD 0.13 is quite old now and they've made a lot of updates but have not made another release yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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