https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(adel.gadllah@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #6 from Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Adel Gadllah from comment #5) > (In reply to Siddharth Sharma from comment #3) > > > > > > ===== 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. Upstream is looking into fixing this. I am waiting for a fixed release instead of patching it downstream for now. > > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > Contacted upstream regarding that. It does not actually bundle the llvm library. It just copied code from LLVM and uses it internally. Which is why it provides the LLVM license in addition to its own. > > [?]: %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. Upstream said he will look into creating a separate target for this. -- 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