https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212157 --- Comment #5 from Jiri Benc <jbenc@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Antti, thanks a lot for your time and your review! (In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #2) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of > licensecheck in /tmp/review-1212157/1212157-plotnetcfg/licensecheck.txt > > Note: According to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > I understand that in spec it should read "License: GPLv2+ and MIT/X11" > and explanation should be put into comments, something like > "Entire package in GPLv2+ except parson/ which is in MIT/X11" One may argue that the whole package is just GPL given the compatibility of the MIT and GPL licenses. I'll include the "and MIT" as it seems it's what preferred. It's not "MIT/X11", though, as the license does not contain the X11 non-advertising clause. > [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} is run at beginning of %install Okay, my fault, this seems to be needed only for old Fedora versions. > [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. > Note: file COPYING is there, installed with %doc. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines > says that "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 must be included in %license." I saw this but when I looked for the usage of %license, the only thing I found was https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package stating that "These prefixes are not valid in Fedora: %license and %readme" which is in disagreement with the guidelines. Also, no package that I looked at uses %license. I'm a bit lost about how to use that macro; Lubomir suggested it's used the same way as %doc, I'll try it. > [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: %clean present and starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} Will remove. Thanks! -- 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