https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180398 --- Comment #2 from Karolina Surma <ksurma@xxxxxxxxxx> --- >From fedora-review: - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text pdm doesn't declare its license files via License-File field. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.11/site- packages/pdm(python3-pdm-pep517) Is that OK or should it be mitigated? None of those packages installs files to /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pdm, each uses their own namespace. As for the rest, the package looks well. I used it to build python-sphinxcontrib-zopeext 0.4.2 locally in mock it worked like charm. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180398 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
