https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379765 --- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to MartinKG from comment #3) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) > for the package is included in %license. > Note: License file font-licenses.txt is not marked as %license > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > ==>> please include the file font-licenses.txt in %license > %license license.txt Data/Sys/GC/font-licenses.txt > > please move the following lines for better readability below %install > > %post > ... > > %postun > ... > > %posttrans > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > > Generic: > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "WTFPL WTFPL (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or > generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", "GPL (v2 or later) > (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF > address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 3191 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/dolphin-emu/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > ==>> Please do so. That's MUST. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Sounds good, I've updated the SPEC. I'm not sure what's picking up the WTFPL as I'm pretty confident there's no WTFPL licensed code in there: likely a false positive. As well, it seems the public domain code was removed in 5.0, while some zlib and MIT was added. Updated SPEC (no rel bump, i'll do this after fixing the noarch subpackages): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/dolphin-emu.spec > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6133760 bytes in /usr/share > ==>> Please split package into e.q. a data subpackage. > I'll look into this when I get home tonight. In hindsight, I'm pretty sure there should be a data subpackage and a data-gui subpackage, as nogui probably needs some of the files from %{_datadir}/%{name}. I'll also throw the icon and desktop files into data-gui too for good measure. Thanks! -- 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