https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991202 --- Comment #7 from Didik Supriadi <didiksupriadi41@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xpp3 > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names This is expected > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/chronoelves/xpp3/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ This is expected > - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools > (jpackage-utils) > Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is > pulled in by maven-local > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java I just installed the fedora-review-plugin-java, and this issue came out. I think it doesn't allow you to BR javapackages-local and BR maven-local instead (?) > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Apache License 1.1", "Unknown or generated", "IBM Public > License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later > [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place), obsolete FSF postal > address (Temple Place)]". 298 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /home/chronoelves/xpp3/licensecheck.txt licensecheck.txt output: Apache License 1.1 ------------------ xpp3-1.1.4c/LICENSE.txt xpp3-1.1.4c/doc/acknowledgement/LICENSE.txt xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/ant/LICENSE.txt GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place), obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/xmlpull/LICENSE_TESTS.txt xpp3-1.1.4c/src/java/tests/LICENSE_TESTS.txt IBM Public License 1.0 ---------------------- xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/junit/LICENSE.txt for IBM and LGPLv2+, they consist of "tests" and file from lib/ folder. Looking at them, it probably good to remove the lib/ folder, but Idk you should get rid of the "tests" folder or not. So leaving us with "License: ASL 1.1" But after some research, from https://search.maven.org/artifact/xpp3/xpp3/1.1.4c/jar, it should be "License: ASL 1.1 and BSD and Public Domain" (Indiana License looks like BSD, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD) Meanwhile, from https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/xpp3/xpp3/1.1.4c, it should be "License: ASL 1.1 and CC0 and Public Domain" So I don't know for sure which licenses are the correct one. > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > xpp3-minimal is this not applicable? -- 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
