https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202470 --- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #13) > Sorry the delay, I made the initial review when I was not in packagers group > so I considered my review only informational and then forgot about it. But > ok, I can finish this review. I again used automated tool and then made > manual checks. To put it short, there are 2 issues, first already mentioned > in March: > - license. > - versioning because this looks like a snapshot package. > > But apart from that this looks ok to me. See comments below. > > -- > Antti > > Generic: > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > > -> I mark this now as "fail" because I'd like to get clarification > about license of files in directories mozilla-export-scripts and ruby-gcj > ; > they seem legit to me but mention nothing about license. Are the files > part of upstream distribution or where do they come from? > [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", > "*No copyright* Public domain", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 > clause)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)". 35 files > have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /tmp/bug1202470/1202470-validator-htmlparser/licensecheck.txt > [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > -> Yes, but with questions presented above about the license. Not used and i never want use that crap! > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > -> There is disagreement about version. If I understood right, > the released version 1.4 is old and the version packaged here > is a more recent snapshot from version control. It should > be versioned as stated in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshot_packages > So "Release:" could became something like > 20161101hg42d7aef60138 that looks ugly but tells both the date > and the exact commit in mercurial. No thanks! changeset726 42d7aef60138 corrispond to 1.4 release. And i dont want change nothing for that field -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx