https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156086 --- Comment #16 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak@xxxxxxxxx> --- I don't know why some of my scratch builds end up listed here. Those are not the same ones as the next version below: Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/r02/openmx.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/r02/openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm Addressed issues: 1. I believe the problem with diff may be due to fedora-review itself (or something else). Two local fedora-review (fedora-review-0.6.0-2.fc23.noarch) runs reported once Bi10.0.pao and Xe11.0.pao the second time to differ. Both times the problematic file seems to be truncated, and the truncation happens in the upstream-unpacked folder, which should correspond to the extracted tarball. Checking the contents of the source tarball present in the fedora-review's directory shows there is no mismatch: [openmx@localhost ~]$ ls -al openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz -rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 117784869 Nov 11 08:47 openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz [openmx@localhost ~]$ tar tvf openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz | grep Xe11 -rw-rw-rw- ozaki/ozaki 684404 2013-04-29 03:11 openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao Compare this to fedora-review reported diff:: [openmx@localhost ~]$ ls -al /home/openmx/openmx/upstream-unpacked/Source0/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao /home/openmx/openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz-extract/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao -rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 684404 Apr 29 2013 /home/openmx/openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz-extract/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao -rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 572416 Nov 11 09:16 /home/openmx/openmx/upstream-unpacked/Source0/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao This is weird, maybe you can figure out more. 2. I believe the licensing of the package is OK, and reported a missing license file to upstream http://www.openmx-square.org/forum/patio.cgi?mode=view&no=1747 3. LICENSE and COPYING files are now installed with every subpackage due to license presence in openmx-common and openmx-data. Other subpackages Require openmx-common. 4. openmx-common and openmx-data are noarch so no %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} is used 6. I have included a link to upstream post that justifies the included patches. 7. liberi-091216/.../*oo and test_pp files removed 8. I believe the package does not install under fedora-review due to to fact it tries to install openmx-debuginfo twice. I don't know why this happens. -- 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