https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279527 Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #2 from Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "AGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD GPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 172 files have unknown license. Some tests are under different license than the rest of the library: libosmocore-0.9.0/tests/fr/fr_test.c (AGPLv3+) libosmocore-0.9.0/tests/strrb/strrb_test.c (GPLv3+) I'm not sure if that's a reason to list them in the specfile, though. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/libosmocore [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/osmocom(libosmo- dsp-devel) Are these owned by a required package? If not, they should be owned by libosmocore. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libosmocore-doc , libosmocore-debuginfo I believe this is missing. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are tests in the package. Are they not run on purpose? Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmocodec.so.0.0.0 libosmocodec.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmoctrl.so.0.0.0 libosmoctrl.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmovty.so.3.0.0 libosmovty.so.3()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5(LIBOSMOGSM_1.0)(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogsm.so.5.1.0 libosmogsm.so.5()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmocore.so.6.0.0 libosmocore.so.6()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 libosmosim.so.0()(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4(LIBOSMOGB_1.0)(64bit) libosmocore.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 libosmogb.so.4()(64bit) I have no idea if these are valid complaints or fedora-review just had a brain-fart... libosmocore.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libosmosim.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 This is "fixed" in the spec, but rpmlint still complains for some reason. libosmocore.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmogb.so.4.0.0 bssgp_prim_cb Is the library actually usable without 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