https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325378 --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: [reply] [−] Description Ben Rosser 2016-04-08 11:40:44 EDT Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng-0.5-0.2.beta.2.fc23.src.rpm Description: SPASM-ng is a z80 assembler with extra features to support development for TI calculators. SPASM-ng can assemble and create assembly programs and flash applications in formats that can be shipped directly to TI-z80 (TI-83+, TI-83+SE, TI-84+, TI-83+SE, TI-84+CSE, TI-84+CE) calculators. SPASM-ng was originally from the SPASM project, and was forked to fix a few bugs. It was originally written by Spencer Putt and Don Straney, with additional development by Chris Shappell and James Montelongo. This release incorporates eZ80 support in preparation for the launch of the TI-84+CE. It also greatly increases the limit on the number of labels that can be defined. Fedora Account System Username: tc01 Some notes: * spasm-ng is available in this COPR (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tc01/spasm-ng/) if you wish to test it. * spasm-ng is distributed upstream alongside some z80 assembly include files, for linking against the TI-83+. Where should these be distributed? I've put them into /usr/include/spasm-ng, which feels like... not quite the right place, but I'm not sure if .../share/ makes any more sense. * One of these files (https://github.com/alberthdev/spasm-ng/blob/master/inc/ti83plus.inc) was originally written by TI, and I'm not certain we (Fedora) can legally redistribute it. If necessary, it can be removed from the package. On the other hand, the included license text seems only to establish the file is under no warranty and that its copyright notice be left intact, and the calculator hacking community has redistributed this file for years. (Though that obviously doesn't mean Fedora can ship it). [reply] [−] Comment 1 Ben Rosser 2016-07-19 19:53:22 EDT Having thought about the include file situation further... I believe they probably should be removed from the package: Their authorship and copyright is difficult to assert (most of the community written files are not licensed, and ti83plus.inc was originally written by TI and then heavily modified), most authors of TI calculator assembly projects bundle them with their code anyway, and spasm does not expect include files to be available system-wide to begin with. The AUR package for Arch makes a similar decision and does not include them. I have also realized the package was not being built with system-wide ldflags, so I fixed that and reuploaded the package. Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng-0.5-0.3.beta.2.fc23.src.rpm I believe it is now ready for review. [reply] [−] Comment 2 gil cattaneo 2016-08-27 04:47:27 EDT can you take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839 for me? Assignee: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx → puntogil@xxxxxxxxx Flags: fedora-review? [reply] [−] Comment 3 gil cattaneo 2016-08-27 04:50:15 EDT Please, remove rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install section [reply] [−] Comment 4 gil cattaneo 2016-08-27 04:56:49 EDT I get Error 404 downloading https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng-0.5-0.3.beta.2.fc23.src.rpm please, fix also the problem reported above [reply] [−] Comment 5 Ben Rosser 2016-08-27 12:47:12 EDT Oh, whoops. The correct SRPM is fc24, not fc23: Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng-0.5-0.3.beta.2.fc24.src.rpm I will fix the rm -rf %{buildroot} as well. [reply] [−] Comment 6 gil cattaneo 2016-08-27 12:58:38 EDT (In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #5) > I will fix the rm -rf %{buildroot} as well. It is still there ... [reply] [−] Comment 7 gil cattaneo 2016-08-27 13:22:02 EDT Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. ./lib/x64/mpir.lib ./lib/x64/mpir.pdb ./lib/mpir.lib ./lib/mpir.pdb Please, remove [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1325378 -spasm-ng/licensecheck.txt ./gmp.h LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) ./modp_ascii.cpp BSD ./modp_ascii.h (3 clause) The remain source code is without license headers. Please, report the problem to upstream and ask to add the license header where are missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Please, add: GNU MP Library ./gmp.h Provides: bundled(gmp) = [unknown version] http://code.google.com/p/stringencoders/ ./modp_ascii.cpp BSD ./modp_ascii.h Provides: bundled(stringencoders) = [unknown version] i dont known the version this libraries. Please replace "[unknown version]" with an appropriate value [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required -- 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