https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #1) > fedora-review complained about a LICENSE file that was not declared with the > macro and it turns out that it belongs to spdlog, which is bundled together. > We already have spdlog in the repos, do you need to have the bundled version > for some reason? Darn touchpads, I posted it by accident. Continuing: By the way, if it needs to be bundled, then I guess you ought to have both licenses, LGPLv3+ and MIT and a comment explaining why that is. There's also the issue with the address of the FSF, which should be corrected upstream. Is there a reason for not including and running the testsuite (which would add a whole bunch of licenses) in %check? The NEWS and Changelog files are empty and rpmlint complains: freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/ChangeLog freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/NEWS Since they serve no purpose, they should be eliminated, until upstream decides to add something to them. The source URL is giving me a 500 Internal Server Error, but I think GitHub is glitching at the moment. Kudos on submitting the patches upstream and soname versioning. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
