https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899884 --- Comment #2 from Davide Caratti <dcaratti@xxxxxxxxxx> --- hello Andy, thanks for reviewing. (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56073379 > > > Release: 1%{?dist} > > License: GPL > > Upstream mentions the package is BSD-licensed: > https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/blob/master/COPYING > However, that's a different upstream than the one linked on the page from > the URL: https://multipath-tcp.org/ > Sources: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp/blob/mptcp_v0.95/COPYING > licensecheck reports GPL, LGPL and BSD: > *No copyright* GNU General Public License (v2.0) > ------------------------------------------------ > mptcpd-0.5/LICENSES/README > > BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License > --------------------------------------- > mptcpd-0.5/COPYING > > GNU Lesser General Public License > --------------------------------- > mptcpd-0.5/LICENSES/COPYING.GPL > > The versions don't match either. The original project (?) features 0.95: > http://multipath-tcp.org/pmwiki.php?n=Main.Release95 > The Intel project features 0.5: > https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/releases/tag/v0.5 > > Could it be that the Source0 field is wrong? please note, 'mptcp_v0.95' is *not* the same project ("mptcp" != "mptcpd") looking at the sources, I see that it's all SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause BSD 3-clause except kernel uAPI headers, that are GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note > > BuildRequires: libtool > > BuildRequires: automake > > BuildRequires: autoconf > > BuildRequires: autoconf-archive > > BuildRequires: libell-devel > > BuildRequires: systemd-units > > Missing BuildRequires on gcc and/or gcc-c++ or clang ok, will add > > Source0: https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > It's possible to get a fully named tarball via a slightly different URL: > > https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/archive/v0.5/mptcpd-0.5.tar.gz > > That way you don't have to alias :). However, see earlier comment about > sources. ok, thanks! will try without alias > > > %install > > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_libexecdir} > > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man8 > > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/%{name} > > make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install > > Double check, but I think above is the default behavior of the %make_install > macro so it can be used instead. looking at https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/macros.in#L1067 , I think you are right. I'll check if build is still ok with %make_install, and eventually replace. > > find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' > > %ldconfig_scriptlets > > %ldconfig_scriplets are no longer necessary I believe. However, the hooks > for systemd units are missing. Described here: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/ > #_scriptlets ok, I will check this. > > %package devel > > Summary: MPTCP path manager header files > > Group: Development/Libraries > > Requires: pkgconfig > > License: GPL > > The -devel subpackage should typically have a versioned Requires on the main > package like so: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} ok, I will add them. > > %{_libdir}/libmptcpd.* > > %{_libdir}/mptcpd/*.so > > Are the SO files in %{_libdir}/mptcpd/ internal to the package? They don't > need to be versioned, correct? correct, we don't expect to add a library (at least, not for the moment). > > %{_libexecdir}/%{name} > > %{_unitdir}/mptcp.service > > The %{_unitdir} macro requires BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros ok, I will update BuildRequires thanks! -- davide -- 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
