https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269649 --- Comment #16 from Jens Lody <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #15) > - There is code released with GPLv2+ license. > Please, update License: 'LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+' > done > - Please, update incorrect FSF address > done, by updating gettext.h > - COPYING.LIB is not packaged. > done > - -doc subpackage must not require main package; it's > standalone and must provide an own license file. > done for the first issue, the second one is a bit tricky, I have to ask old upstream which license can be used, the pdf-file (and the appropriate *.sxw-file) was downloadable without special license. I just split the package, because it was too large and it was in old aeskulap package without special license. > - Libraries and 'aeskulap' binary files contain rpaths. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath > > Please, remove them and set LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable > of 'Exec' key in the .desktop file. > According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rpath_for_Internal_Libraries this is valid for internal libraries, that's why I did not change it > - Remove the *.la files > they are already excluded in %files-section > - Please, update the appdata file "project_license" list. > done > - If you want package in <F23, you need set flags for hardened builds. > Use 'checksec' tool to check > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages). > done > > rpmlint warnings: > > - aeskulap.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm /dangerous-command-in-%post > rm > are related to the GConf scriptlets; they can be ignored, i think. > > - "non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/aeskulap.schemas" can be ignored > as well; > %config is never used for *.schemas files. > Looks like false positives to me > - Package installs properly. > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines this happens from time to time and is most likely a fedora-review or mock or whatever issue. > - GConf schemas are properly installed > Note: gconf file(s) in aeskulap > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#GConf looks also like false positive > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/aeskulap > See: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ > NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names > obviously okay here (re-review of orphaned package) > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. see my comment above rpaths for internal libs > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) > (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 107 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/sagitter/1269649-aeskulap/licensecheck.txt fixed > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. see my comment above > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > aeskulap-debuginfo How do I do it? It's an autogenerated package. > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: Mock build failed > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint see my comment above, happens from time to time, but I will doublecheck it Updated srpm- and spec-files, debug-package untouched, doc.package still without license-file: https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/aeskulap-0.2.2-0.24.beta1.fc23.src.rpm https://rpm.jenslody.de/review/aeskulap.spec -- 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