https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342 --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #9) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache > (v2.0)". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/builder/1290342-ecc-25519-java/licensecheck.txt "75 files have unknown license" refer to these files? ./ECC-25519-Android/ecc-25519/src/main/java/com/github/dazoe/android/Ed25519.java /ECC-25519-Android*/ecc-25519/src/main/jni/* i don't want import these features > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. for me is ok > [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. test suite are executed as primary task, is not necessary add useless "sections" > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. yes handled by our java tools > Summary: > - I'm not sure we can consider the license is public domain since few > sources files do not contains a license header. I know this would fall under > the definition of public domain in the guideline. But would be contradicted > by: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Public_Domain > I think that the intention of the author is to have everything licensed > under ASL 2.0 but it would requires clarification. Not necessary, under Public Domain license are those files that i remove as bundled code ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/djb > - You are missing a "-" between email and package EVR in changelog. rpmlint > haven't found it and I don't expect it's a hard requirement. But at least > that the format used by the rpmdev-bumpspec tool I dont want use "-" in my spec file, and i am not interested to use that tool > - What the point to use /usr/bin/perl over perl (as package) directly ? or > at least the appropriate macro ? I need only the binary for change the build scripts ... > None of theses issues are blocker, so it should be okay Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm - fix license 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