https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838686 --- Comment #28 from markusN <neteler@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #27) > Created attachment 1692463 [details] > licensecheck.txt > > Full review below. Thanks for the new review. > Issues: > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > => In bundled code and elsewhere, in addition to BSD you also have code > licensed ASL2.0, Expat and various flavours of the boost licence. You'll > need to add the licenses of code which is actually compiled into the > libraries (so i.e. not tests) to the License field and add a comment on the > license breakdown. See attached licensecheck.txt for details. I went through the licensecheck.txt file and verified the unclear extractions within the files. Would the following change be ok (twice in the spec file)? -%license LICENSE.txt +%license Apache License 2.0 and Boost Software License 1.0 and BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License and BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License and Expat License and NTP License and SIL Open Font License 1.1 and zlib/libpng license > PDAL.src:157: E: hardcoded-library-path in > %{_prefix}/lib/pdal/cmake/PDAL*.cmake > => Can't spot where rpmlint picked this one out, I'd quickly check if the > installed cmake files actually work (since the path referenced there does > not exist), and if yes, then I'd ignore this one It is here: 132 # Remove duplicated cmake files 133 rm -f %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/pdal/cmake/PDAL*.cmake I can comment it out and see what happens (not being familiar with cmake). > Rest looks good. Great news! > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > ===== MUST items ===== [...] > Generic: [...] > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" > License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", > "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License Apache License 2.0", "Expat > License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Boost Software License > 1.0", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No > copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0 > [generated file]", "NTP License", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", > "zlib/libpng license Boost Software License 1.0", "Public domain Boost > Software License 1.0", "NTP License Boost Software License 1.0". 1253 > files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/sandro/Desktop/1838686-PDAL/licensecheck.txt ...see above. [...] > Installation errors > ------------------- [...] > /home/sandro/Desktop/1838686-PDAL/results/PDAL-libs-2.1.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm > ERROR: Command failed: > # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ > --releasever 29 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local > --disableplugin=spacewalk install This is strange: no error message provided. [...] > Rpmlint > ------- [...] > PDAL-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpdal_base.so.11 > exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ... already fixed upstream (will be part of the July 2020 release). [...] > /usr/share/doc/PDAL-doc/html/_static/logo/sticker/front.ai > PDAL-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/PDAL-doc/html/_static/logo/sticker/front.ai > PDAL-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/PDAL-doc/html/_static/logo/sticker/iheartpdal.ai > PDAL-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/PDAL-doc/html/_static/logo/sticker/iheartpdal.ai > PDAL-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/PDAL-doc/html/_static/logo/sticker/sticker.ai > PDAL-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/PDAL-doc/html/_static/logo/sticker/sticker.ai ... already fixed upstream (will be part of the July 2020 release). [...] > PDAL.src:157: E: hardcoded-library-path in > %{_prefix}/lib/pdal/cmake/PDAL*.cmake ...see above. -- 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
