https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828205 --- Comment #21 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. It does not. > [ ]: Package contains no static executables. It does now. > Generic: > [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. MIT is approved. > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Boost Software > License (v1.0)", "Expat License Boost Software License (v1.0)", "*No > copyright* GNU General Public License (v3)", "Apache License (v2.0)". > 199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/dcantrell/doctest/licensecheck.txt Everything in the project is licensed under the MIT license noted in LICENSE.txt in the source. licensecheck.txt contains false information where it is misdetecting some licenses. > [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Yep. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. None. > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. Yes. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Yes. > [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. N/A > [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package Yes. > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. Correct. > [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). Yes. > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Yes. > [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. None. > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. Yes, as much as cmake allows. > [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. N/A > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. N/A > [ ]: 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. N/A > [ ]: 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 61440 bytes in 3 files. N/A > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Yes > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A, license already included. > [ ]: 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. Yes. > [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. N/A > [ ]: 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. N/A > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. Yes > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. Yes -- 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
