https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292209 --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Paul Belanger from comment #6) > Had a chance to run fedora-review on your spec. Thanks! > In general good, but it > founds some issues below. The biggest seems to be related to licensing, a > lot of files were missing that. I'm not an expert on LICENCE issue so it > would be good to get another person to comment on my review. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed Usually you'd fill all boxes in (one way or another), and then remove this line. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", > "Unknown or generated". 117 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /tmp/1292244/review-python- > nsdf/licensecheck.txt The license is specified as GPLv3+ in the spec file, and those headers that specify the license match that. It is quite normal for many individual files not to have licensing information or copyright statements, and this is not treated as an error. The main guidelines [1,2] don't address this case specifically, but in the FAQ there are similar considerations (see point 3 in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F) It seems common sense to assume that if the README or setup.py or some headers specify a license, and there is no disagreement between them, that this is the license. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > devel and tools are missing the LICENSE Different package? This one only has python2-nsdf and python-nsdf-doc subpackages, and both have the README, although they don't have a LICENSE file, because on is missing from the upstream repo and tarball. You could (and should) say instead, that I'm supposed to contact upstream about adding a license file. Indeed, I haven't done this. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). Can you be more specific here? > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > [x]: Package installs properly. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x]: Dist tag is present. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. > [x]: Package is not relocatable. > [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > Python: > [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build > process. > [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. > [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. It uses the standard %py2_build macro. If this is not paralellized, and could be, than this might be a bug in python2-devel. In this case "build" is really copying a few files to build/lib, so it doesn't really matter either way. > [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > python2-nsdf , python-nsdf-doc > [ ]: Package functions as described. > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [x]: Buildroot is not present > [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. What about all the open boxes [ ]? -- 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