https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364542 --- Comment #10 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8) > Issues: > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "WTFPL WTFPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF > address)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No > copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1) (with incorrect FSF > address)", "GPL (v2.0)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "*No > copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) > (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "ISC", > "zlib/libpng", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with > incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or > later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL", "*No copyright* WTFPL", > "GPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown > or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "BSL (v1.0)", "GPL (v2)". 778 files > have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/gil/1364542-ardour5/licensecheck.txt > See attached file > BSL (v1.0) >> Boost The Boost license doesn't require that copyright notices and licensing terms are included with compiled programs, and besides that it's compatible with the GPL and linked to GPL code, i.e. the resulting binary is GPL. I've noticed however that one of the internal libraries is licensed GPLv3+, making the combined whole GPLv3+ not GPLv2+. I've updated the License field and the LICENSING document (plus licenses that require that their texts be distributed with the program). > Most of the file have incorrect Free Software Foundation addres, > please, report to upstream > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Upstream doesn't have an issue tracker enabled on their github project, and I know of no other. That's consistent with their usual stance ("patches accepted") ;). I don't have the time right now to fix all the files myself, so that'll have to wait until I have more time. > [!]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores > mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages. > Note: mimeinfo files in: ardour5 > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo > Missing in %post The wiki example specifically puts update-mime-database into %posttrans instead of %post, that's the way I did it. > ardour5.i686: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/ardour5.appdata.xml > please, check Fixed and PR submitted: https://github.com/Ardour/ardour/pull/261 > NON blocking issues: > > [?]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > https://github.com/Ardour/ardour/archive/5.0/ardour-5.0.tar.gz That tarball is empty, the one I included is an "official" download. > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: # This macro creates a backend ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > subpackage. Needs to be %%define, not %%global., %define ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This, right here ;), it doesn't work with %global. > backend_package() %package %{1}backend-%{lua: > print(string.lower(rpm.expand("%2")))}Summary: %{2} %{1} backend for > %{name}Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}Provides: > %{name}-%{1}backend%{?_isa}%{?3:License: %{3}}%description > %{1}backend-%{lua: print(string.lower(rpm.expand("%2")))}This package > provides the %{2} %{1} backend for Ardour.%files %{1}backend-%{lua: > > print(string.lower(rpm.expand("%2")))}%{_libdir}/%{name}/backends/lib%{lua: > print(string.lower(rpm.expand("%2")))}_%{1}backend.so I've kicked off builds in COPR here, should be done in ~45 minutes: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nphilipp/ardour5/build/441130/ I'll update the ticket later with direct links to the SPEC file and SRPM package. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx