https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229170 --- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #3) > (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. Those are relevant for source RPM. Therefore I enumerated them here. > > 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: 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. > [...] > > 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/ > Could you annotate an origin of the patches in the spec file <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/>? > > 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. > Initial build root and transitive dependencies are not a valid argument. Only transitive dependencies of rpm, rpmbuild, and bash can be implicit. All other dependencies must be explicitly listed <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#buildrequires>. You are right that bash and coreutils are already there. FIX: Build-require 'autoconf' and 'automake'. > > 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? > Because it does not rely on a historical name which is provided there only not to break compatibility with old packages. pkgconfig-pkg-config obsoleted pkgconfig in Fedora. $ rpmlint libmms.spec ../SRPMS/libmms-0.6.4-23.fc40.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/libmms-* ======================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 6 libmms.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libmms/COPYING.LIB libmms-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libmms/mms.h libmms-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libmms/mmsh.h libmms-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libmms/mmsio.h libmms-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libmms/mmsx.h ========= 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 0.4 s ======== rpmlint output is OK. The package builds in Fedora 40 <https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104954866>. Ok. Please add the two dependencies and I will approve this 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=2229170 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202229170%23c6 _______________________________________________ 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
