https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977987 --- Comment #7 from niohiani <notinsideofhereiamnotinside@xxxxxxxxx> --- Alright. Fedora-review works with the latest URLs you provided. These are the sections which require manual review, and my feedback on those sections where possible. A (✓) means there does not appear to be a problem. An (x) means there is an issue. A (?) means I'm not sure. C/C++: (✓): Package does not contain kernel modules. (✓): Package contains no static executables. Generic: (✓): 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* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication", "Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication". 207 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in licensecheck.txt (✓): License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. (✓): %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. (✓): Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. (✓): Changelog in prescribed format. (✓): Sources contain only permissible code or content. (✓): Development files must be in a -devel package (✓): Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. (✓): Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). (✓): Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. (✓): Package does not generate any conflict. (✓): Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. (✓): If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. (✓): Spec file is legible and written in American English. (✓): Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. (✓): Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. (✓): Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 1 files. (✓): Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Generic: (✓): If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. (✓): Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). (✓): Package functions as described. (✓): Latest version is packaged. (✓): Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. (✓): Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. (✓): 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. (✓): Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. To a newb this looks good. I will eMail Ankur to confirm. By the way, I've seen your game floating around, and a couple of articles about it. I tried it out myself a couple of months back, and I appreciate your work. -- 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
