https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546 --- Comment #50 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Gustavo, since this review has been a bit silent, I did run a full review again, so, removing some noise of "fedora-review -b 1264546" on latest rawhide, updated today: ---8<--- [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "PSF (v2)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)". 423 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pcpa/1264546-soletta/licensecheck.txt I noticed there are some files with Python license: soletta-1_beta10/src/modules/flow/converter/LICENSE.PSFL soletta-1_beta10/src/modules/flow/string/LICENSE.PSFL Well, actually, only the python license, the sources there appear to all use BSD/MIT like license. There is also soletta-1_beta10/tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.c_shipped with a GPLv3+ license. But I wonder if there any issues regenerating it, to have the parsed file distributed with sources. ---8<--- [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. I understand this may easily get outdated on updates, but still is a good procedure to document it, mostly to show you are aware of all the source contents. Usually, it is comments about sources, e.g.: # BSD License: # some/dir/* # some/other/dir/* (not built/used) # MIT License: # some/dir/* # GPLv2+ # some/dir/* License: GPLv2+ and BSD and MIT And/or also on files section: %files # GPLv2+ /file/paths ---8<--- [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. For the moment I believe this is not an issue. Just do not install headers or .so in -devel packages. ---8<--- [?]: Package functions as described. I will trust you, and %check for that :) ---8<--- [?]: Latest version is packaged. I believe were waiting for the first release. ---8<--- [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I understand you were working on ensuring the package builds in arm. ---8<--- [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. I kept this as unchecked as there are issues in the make process, where it rebuilds everything on make install. -- 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