https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #37 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Let's make this the last one... (In reply to David Cantrell from comment #36) > [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. It does not. > [ ]: Package contains no static executables. It does not. > [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. They are. > [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. Yes, Apache License 2.0 > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No > copyright* Apache License (v2.0)". 218 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/dcantrell/notcurses/licensecheck.txt Yep, ASL 2.0 which is how Fedora spells "Apache License 2.0". > [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No > copyright* Apache License (v2.0)". 218 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/dcantrell/notcurses/licensecheck.txt Yes. > [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Yes. > [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Yes. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. It does not. > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. Yes. rpm does not complain. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Correct, using the DFSG source release. > [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. It is not a desktop application. > [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package They are. > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. It does not. > [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). Yes. > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. It is. > [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Nope. > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. It does. > [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. N/A > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Yes. > [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Yes. > [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. N/A > [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Yes. > [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. N/A > [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 4 files. Not needed here. > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Again, this is what I'm doing. > [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build > process. It does not. > [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. It does. > [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Yes, very much so. > [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. It includes the license. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Yes. > [ ]: Package functions as described. Yes. > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. Yes. > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. It does not. > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. N/A > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. It does. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. N/A until doctest passes package review. > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. It does. But really, what is time? > [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4044800 bytes in /usr/share We're ok with this. > notcurses.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnotcurses.so.1.3.3 > exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This is ok per comment #34 and comment #35. > notcurses-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation notcurses-static requires the main package which brings in documentation. > notcurses-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > python3-notcurses.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-static.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> > notcurses-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > notcurses.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: > https://nick-black.com/dankwiki/index.php/Notcurses <urlopen error [Errno > -2] Name or service not known> Lies. This is bogus, so disregard. URL is valid. > notcurses.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnotcurses.so.1.3.3 > exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This is ok per comment #34 and comment #35. > python3-notcurses: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/_notcurses.abi3.so This is a bug in fedora-review. See, I filed it: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/389 -- 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
