https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178190 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for the review! (In reply to Sandro from comment #2) > ===== Issues ===== > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > => License string appears to be incomplete. See: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora- > review-2178190-mmlib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05640709-mmlib/fedora-review/ > licensecheck.txt I think it’s complete. The following are the files for which licensecheck detects something other than Apache-2.0: *No copyright* NTP License -------------------------- mmlib-1.4.2/src/mmtime.h FSF All Permissive License -------------------------- mmlib-1.4.2/m4/mm_python_module.m4 For src/mmtime.h, if you look at the file itself, there is nothing about licenses at all. Instead, licensecheck is confused because the file happens to mention NTP—the software, not the license—in a comment. We may safely assume that the license for this file matches the rest of the software. For m4/mm_python_module.m4, this is an m4 script that belongs to the autotools build system. It would be used via autogen.sh to build the configure script from configure.ac. Since the file is not installed directly, and its contents are not compiled into anything that appears in the binary RPMs, its license does not contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs. (We don’t even use the autotools build system for the RPM, preferring Meson instead, but the preceding applies either way.) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field > > [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > => The main package does not contain any doc files. I would suggest to make > README.md and TODO.md part of the main package. Maybe the example/ dir as > well. I don’t feel too strongly about whether README.md and TODO.md should appear in the base/library package or not. I am not convinced they are wrong as they are, but I do not mind moving them from the -devel package to the base package. I am not convinced there is a use case where installing the examples in the base package makes sense; who will want C sources that demonstrate developing programs that use the library, but will not want the headers and unversioned .so link needed to do so themselves? I plan to leave the examples in the -devel package. -- 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=2178190 _______________________________________________ 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
