https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739 --- Comment #7 from John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jiri Kastner from comment #3) ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Yes, licensed under GPLv2 [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/indy/packaging/review/review- rteval/licensecheck.txt Yes, the license field in the spec file is GPLv2 - TODO item for the future, make sure there is a license tag in every file, but this should not hold up approval of the package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval, /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval/__pycache__ All owned by rteval [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/rteval/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval correct [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Correct [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. yes [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. yes [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed yes [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. not a gui application, so no desktop file necessary [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package No development files [ ]: 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. It does not [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. yes [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Not a renmae [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Yes [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Yes [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. Not needed [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. does not use ExcludeArch, but some work is required to make it run on arches other than x86_64 [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. not applicable Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines yes [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 -- 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
