https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 --- Comment #5 from Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Siddharth Sharma from comment #3) > > Issues: > ======= > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are > listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: sed grep Removed. > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [?]: Package contains no static executables. See below (contacted upstream). > 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. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 161 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in > fedora/review/1098965-capstone/licensecheck.txt > Lot of source files don't contain any license > see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965#c2 There is no requirement for source files to contain any license. The license is noted in the LICENSE files. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > There are 2 files LICENSE.TXT and LICENSE_LLVM.TXT i see only one packaged > why the LICENSE_LLVM.TXT is *NOT packaged Oversight added LICENSE_LLVM.TXT > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java Fixed. > [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Contacted upstream regarding that. > [?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. None of this applies here. > Java: > [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build > [?]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI > Note: capstone subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually Fixed. > [?]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) Upstream uses make to build it which we do as well- > Python: > [?]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. > [?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. It doesn't. > [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Fixed for the python bindings, the java ones do not build with smp_mflags, added a comment in the spec. > [x]: 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. > [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. It doesn't. > [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. It does see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6862558 > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. There is no "make check" in the package. The tests run as part of the build contacted upstream about that as well. > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. It does (uses "install -p..."). --- Updated package / spec: http://94.247.144.115/files/rpm/capstone.spec http://94.247.144.115/files/rpm/capstone-2.1.2-2.fc20.src.rpm -- 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