https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492794 --- Comment #7 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@xxxxxxxxxx> --- ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Artistic", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1139 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lsm5/repositories/pkgs/reviews/1492794-caddy/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. The main package is ASL 2.0 licensed, correct? The license field should just have ASL 2.0. The %license in %files does correctly have the licenses for the individual components. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id (libwayland-server, virglrenderer, cyrus-sasl-md5, iputils, spectrwm, This one can be ignored. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Could you please give another shot and check if things have changed since for the failed arch? Also, might be preferable to ExclusiveArch: (list all arches that it builds successfully for) [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines -- 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
