https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827939 --- Comment #6 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Guido Aulisi from comment #5) > Some more findings: > > 1) License seems to be GPLv2+ and not GPLv3+ No, according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field : "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. ". See the top of LICENSING which is the result of my attempt to clear up the licensing situation a couple of years ago: --- 8< --- Ardour is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later. See the file COPYING for details. Ardour uses some 3rd party code distributed under different licenses which are reproduced below where that is necessary. The combined program is licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 3 or later. --- >8 --- The GPLv3+ comes from the libs/zita-convolver, libs/zita-resampler and libs/backends/alsa/zita-* files, respectively. This is also why the RPM package includes the GPLv3 license text separately. > 2) Restore default release tag, rpmdev-bumpspec isn't playing well with that > complex release tag > > Release: %{rel}%{dotprerel}%{?dist} > Release: 1%{?dist} Done. > 3) Add to the end of %install section > # Delete zero length file (problably needed to keep empty dir in GIT) > rm -f "%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/templates/.stub" > > # Delete wscript file (I will send a PR for this) > rm -f "%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/plugin_metadata/wscript" Done, I'll remove the "-f" option so we notice when the removal isn't necessary anymore. > 4) Consider separating patchfiles to a subpackage, they are about 23MB and I > think almost useless for medium user. > %{_datadir}/%{name}/patchfiles/ I'd prefer to leave them in the main package. Splitting them off would only reduce the package size by a third, or the equivalent of about 130 seconds of uncompressed CD-quality audio. But if someone needs these files, it's hard to discover that they need to install an additional package (i.e. bad user experience). > 5) Explain better why backend macro has to be %define Done. > 6) Do we need FPC exception for bundled libraries? I don't think so, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling . Where we have (functional equivalent) library packages, ardour uses them. The bundled bits are either customized, a "copylib" (just included headers), or ardour-internal libraries. See the comments around lines 117~130 of the spec file. > This is the output of fedora-review: there are some minor points that did > not pass the checks, like this one: > Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/.build- > id/73/1f90065311c407094863ffddc11d39fd40a298 > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is odd, it's a debuginfo file and I don't know what could be done to fix this in the spec file. > ===== MUST items ===== ... > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. See above, it does. ;) ... > ===== SHOULD items ===== ... > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Same here. ... > Generic: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 28323840 bytes in /usr/share > ardour6-6.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm:28323840 > See: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines See above. I'm also confused about these "extra" items, they don't seem to be covered in the guidelines at all. -- 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
