https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229170 --- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #2) > Found licenses: > > aclocal.m4: FSFULLRWD AND FSFULLR AND GPL-2.0-or-later WITH > Libtool-exception AND FSFUL > config.guess: GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-generic > config.sub: GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-generic > configure: FSFUL AND GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Libtool-exception > depcomp: GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-generic > install: X11 AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain > INSTALL: FSFULLR-like > ltmain.sh: GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Libtool-exception > Makefile.in: FSFULLRWD > missing: GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Autoconf-exception-generic > pkgconfig/Makefile.in: FSFULLRWD > src/Makefile.in: FSFULLRWD The above do not end up included in binary RPM, so are irrelevant. [...] > 0002-Add-a-new-testfiledownload.c-example.patch: LGPL-2-or-later This is upstream commit: https://sourceforge.net/p/libmms/code/ci/34060b0c0cb13eed323577becf72a13b43654c00/ > 0003-Fix-build-if-strndup-is-missing.patch: Unknown license! This is upstream commit: https://sourceforge.net/p/libmms/code/ci/67d54003b8075b8ea8102bc4a808df4543ab113a/ The strndup implementation is not used in the binary, because glibc provides one. > FIX: Use "LGPL-2.1-or-later" in the License tag to match what is in > COPYING.LIB file. Done. > FIX: Find where 0003-Fix-build-if-strndup-is-missing.patch comes from. Now > it's a piece of code without a license, hence Fedora cannot distribute it. I > guess it comes from an old gcc/libiberty. As above, this is already upstream, but not used in the binary. > FIX: Build-require "coreutils" (libmms.spec:38). > FIX: Build-require "bash" (autogen.sh:1). Unnecessary. These are already present in the initial buildroot. > FIX: Build-require "autoconf" (autogen.sh:2). > FIX: Build-require "automake" (configure.in:3). These are pulled in by libtool, no need to spell them out. > TODO: Ask upstream to updated FSF address at > <https://sourceforge.net/p/libmms/bugs/>. Sure. > TODO: Link 0005-Avoid-possible-overflow-in-sprintf.patch to > <https://sourceforge.net/p/libmms/bugs/23/> and share the patch there. This is upstream already: https://sourceforge.net/p/libmms/code/ci/8b5e303fc1f01521c727e351270dd68c4f15190b/ > TODO: Link 0006-Fix-possible-NULL-Pointer-deref-in-mmsh.c.patch to > <https://sourceforge.net/p/libmms/bugs/18/>. This is upstream already: https://sourceforge.net/p/libmms/code/ci/5cface3df0e0213d8bc593d82a9a7c1e648dd71a/ [...] > $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libmms-devel-0.6.4-22.fc40.x86_64.rpm > | sort -f | uniq -c > 1 /usr/bin/pkg-config > 1 libmms(x86-64) = 0.6.4-22.fc40 > 1 libmms.so.0()(64bit) > 1 pkgconfig > 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 > FIX: Run-require "pkgconf-pkg-config" instead of "pkgconfig". > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig is owned by pkgconf-pkg-config. pkgconfig-pkg-config provides pkgconfig, so... why? [...] > Otherwise, the package is in line with Fedora packaging guidelines. > Please correct the "FIX" items, consider fixing "TODO" items, and provide a > new spec file. Thank you for the review! Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libmms/libmms.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libmms/libmms-0.6.4-23.fc38.src.rpm * Wed Aug 16 2023 Dominik Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6.4-23 - fix license field -- 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=2229170 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202229170%23c3 _______________________________________________ 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
