https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 --- Comment #28 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to MartinKG from comment #27) > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #26) > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa", "GPL (v2 or > > later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated". > > 1555 files have unknown license. > > > License is GPLv3 not GPLv3+. See LICENSE file > > done > > > > [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. > > > You should really add a breakdown if possible > > done I think you misunderstood. There are two licenses provided: CCPL (CC by-sa v3.0) and GPL. According you the readme, all code is GPL v3 (excluding data/common.scm, which is actually GPLv2+) and all multimedia is CC by-sa v3.0. You can change the breakdown to the following: > # All code is GPLv3 except: > # asgp/data/common.scm is GPL (v2 or later) > # All multimedia (pictures, sounds, levels, etc.) is CC BY-SA V3.0 As well, asgp/android can be deleted in prep as you shouldn't need these files for Fedora (thus you should also remove ASL 2.0). Also please include the full licenses in the data file %license macro like so: > %license asgp/LICENSE asgp/license/* Note the %license macro for the main package is not necessary, since the main package requires the data package, but you may include it if you so please. > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/bear-factory > > > This can be fixed by adding the following to the main package: > > BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme > > Requires: hicolor-icon-theme > > > Which is something I missed when I was reviewing bear. Please fix this. > > - add RR hicolor-icon-theme in both packages, I think BR is not required. Indeed, the BR is not required, but it should silence the fedora-review warning. Adding only the RR is fine by me. The license issue is the only thing that needs to be fixed. You don't have to upload another srpm if you don't want to, but please post the new spec with the suggested changes before I can approve. -- 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