https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639 Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |oturpe@xxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(hdegoede@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #17 from Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> --- @hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx are you still planning to take this for full review? I could also take over if you do not intend to complete the review. Regarding packaging, I think the upstream tarball is not suitable as a source entry in the specfile. Extracted, it is a > 200 MiB beast with lots of stuff that is not needed for Fedora packaging at all, at least (sub)directories called vs2015, windows and macos, probably others too. I have been told that Calibre package [1] performs similar actions, it could be used as a base for this. [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/calibre Licensing-wise, I doubt that the license really is GPLv2 or GPLv2+. fedora-review gave me this: Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License", "zlib/libpng license", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* Do What The Fuck Youither Want To Public License, Version 2", "Expat License", "ISC License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FreeType License", "Public domain", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Libpng License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng license", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "the Unlicense", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "the Unlicense Expat License", "FreeType License [generated file]", "NTP License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "zlib/libpng license Khronos License", "zlib/libpng license Expat License", "Khronos License", "*No copyright* SGI Free Software License B", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2 [generated file]", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0", "NTP License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "Public domain GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "zlib/libpng license [generated file]", "zlib/libpng license Public domain", "zlib/libpng license NTP License", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Apple MIT License GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* Common Public License 1.0". 3105 files have unknown license. Not all of them end up in the binary rpm, some are only found inside vs2015 directory, for example, but the situation should be checked. It also seems that some licenses that require attaching the full license text are not respected in that manner (note that this needs to be handled for source rpm even if the file is not used for binary rpm, because the source rpm is distributed by Fedora, too). Probably it would be the best to first create a smaller source tarball as suggested above, so that there would be less files and licenses to check. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
