https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214 --- Comment #9 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 225 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1432214-reg/licensecheck.txt --- Main source uses the MIT license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. --- I'll okay this given that golang tools are too painful to be built with unbundled libraries and unbundling produces no apparent benefit (IMHO). If anybody disapproves, I welcome them to unbundle deps themselves. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. --- I see config(noreplace) in /etc/sysconfig/reg-server and /var/lib/reg-server . Is it possible they could be placed in /etc/reg-server instead. Just that I do remember people discouraging the use of /etc/sysconfig/blah in favor of /etc/blah. (I'll post the link to packaging guidelines for this if any exists) [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. --- please generate this as per jchaloup's comment above. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 204800 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Additionally, could you also please post a successful scratch build URL? -- 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
