https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867360 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > License: GPLv3+ I see a similar situation as in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867321. Some files have different licenses: community.general-1.0.0/plugins/module_utils/_netapp.py: BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License community.general-1.0.0/plugins/module_utils/compat/ipaddress.py: Python Software Foundation License version 2 community.general-1.0.0/plugins/module_utils/identity/keycloak/keycloak.py: BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License community.general-1.0.0/tests/integration/targets/jboss/tasks/jboss.yml: Expat License In this case the "License" field should probably look like this: License: GPLv3+ and BSD and Python and MIT However, I'm wondering whether it would not be a good idea to inform upstream about general issues with licensing, since there might be more files with different licenses scattered about in the https://github.com/ansible-collections organization. rpmlint found a potentially redundant file (.empty): > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: ansible-collection-community-general-1.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm > ansible-collection-community-general-1.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm > ansible-collection-community-general.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/community/general/changelogs/fragments/.empty > ansible-collection-community-general.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/community/general/changelogs/fragments/.empty > ansible-collection-community-general.src: W: unexpanded-macro URL %{ansible_collection_url} > ansible-collection-community-general.src: W: invalid-url URL %{ansible_collection_url} > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Full review matrix: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file na_cdot_license.py is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Review: this is not a license file, thus this warning can be ignored. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages Review: this is a noarch package. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Python Software Foundation License version 2", "Expat License". 2159 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/ansible-collection-community- general/ansible-collection-community-general/licensecheck.txt Review: see earlier comment. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Review: it's a noarch package. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: yes, but see comment about licensing. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Review: it's a noarch package. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ansible-collection-community-general-1.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm ansible-collection-community-general-1.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm ansible-collection-community-general.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/community/general/changelogs/fragments/.empty ansible-collection-community-general.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ansible/collections/ansible_collections/community/general/changelogs/fragments/.empty ansible-collection-community-general.src: W: unexpanded-macro URL %{ansible_collection_url} ansible-collection-community-general.src: W: invalid-url URL %{ansible_collection_url} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name ansible-collection-community-general 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.general/archive/1.0.0/ansible-collection-community-general-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9125de03ba8fb6f4f464f670acc7a71caa9ecf16c821e8344874fad00db90a86 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9125de03ba8fb6f4f464f670acc7a71caa9ecf16c821e8344874fad00db90a86 Requires -------- ansible-collection-community-general (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (ansible >= 2.9.0 with ansible < 2.10.0) ansible Provides -------- ansible-collection-community-general: ansible-collection(community.general) ansible-collection-community-general -- 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
