https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042043 --- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/indi-3rdparty-libraries/indi-3rdparty-libraries.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/indi-3rdparty-libraries/indi-3rdparty-libraries-1.9.3-5.fc36.src.rpm (In reply to Dave Dykstra from comment #4) > The only fail from fedora-review was: > > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > > The diff is only the addition or removal of a couple comment lines so I > don't think that's significant. > > The fails from manual review are: > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > libapogee/LICENSE is GPLv2 but the License in the spec file is > LGPLv2+ and MPLv2.0. licensecheck.txt shows all 3 on various > files, so I guess all 3 should be listed. I don't know if the > LICENSE file(s) should also include all 3, I suppose they should. > libfli/LICENSE.BSD is BSD and matches the libfli subpackage; > licensecheck.txt shows BSD 2-Clause and 3-Clause, and also one > file (libfli/docxx.sty) that's GPLv2. The libfli/LICENSE.BSD > file is 2-Clause. I've corrected libapogee license to "GPLv2+ and MPLv2.0". For libfli, according to Fedora licensing guide, both BSD 2-clause and 3-clause have the "BSD" short name. > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > These are bundled libraries, and I don't see an exception from the > Fedora Packaging Committee referenced. indilib can be considered as "upstream" because the real upstreams are long time dead. Also Debian uses this repository as upstream. Consider also we're already shipping libapogee and libfli from the same indilib sources. Do you think a FPC exception is really required? > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > There are two patch files without links or justification. Yeah, I put the comments in the plain spec file, I didn't update the srpm. Now it is. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > There is no %check. I've added an empty %check as there are no tests to run. > > Please correct or justify these. > > rpmlint passed OK. > -- 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=2042043 _______________________________________________ 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
