https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001467 Kamil Dudka <kdudka@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kdudka@xxxxxxxxxx, | |twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #2 from Kamil Dudka <kdudka@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #1) > The srpm rename and the addition of the tree subpackage look good to me. > This approach avoids the need for obsoletes/provides. However, > fedora-review turned up a few unrelated items that need to be corrected. Thanks for review! > ================================================================================ > > The file strverscmp.c is licensed under LGPLv2+. This must be reflected in > the License field, with a corresponding comment explaining the multiple > licensing breakdown. I suggest: > > -License: GPLv2+ > +# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except strverscmp.c which is LGPLv2+ > +License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios Fixed. > ================================================================================ > > The LICENSE file must be marked as %license in %files. > > -%doc README LICENSE > +%license LICENSE > +%doc README Fixed. > ================================================================================ > > rpmlint found an incorrect FSF address in the LICENSE file. This doesn't > need to be fixed in the package, but must be reported upstream. I also > suggest including a comment in the spec file about the upstream status. > > tree.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tree/LICENSE > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Fixed. > ================================================================================ > > All patches should be sent upstream and the spec file should have a comment > regarding their upstream status. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ Unfortunately, there is no upstream bug tracker or mailing-list we could refer to. I have never received any reply from upstream on the tree-static-analysis.patch posted in 2018: bug #1602718 comment #2 Not sure about the other patches that I inherited from the previous maintainer. There is no info about upstream status in the corresponding bugs in Red Hat Bugzilla: bug #812934 bug #948991 bug #997937 Tim, could you please confirm that fixes for the above bugs have been sent upstream? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001467 _______________________________________________ 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
