https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233317 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package approved. Please take into account the comment below before importing. Please: - add commit rights to java-maint-sig after requesting the repo - add the package to Koschei in the java-maint-sig group on all branches you are building - add the package to release-monitoring.org even if it does not release version BSD-2-Clause AND Apache-2.0: - flexmark-java-0.64.6-1.fc38.src.rpm-extract/flexmark-java-0.64.6.tar.gz-extract/flexmark-java-0.64.6/flexmark-util-misc/src/main/java/com/vladsch/flexmark/util/misc/ImageUtils.java There is some shenanigans here: /* * Copyright (c) 2017, Holger Brandl, All rights reserved. * * Copyright (c) 2017, Vladimir Schneider, All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this * list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation * and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER * CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, * OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE * OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. * Copyright (c) 2015-2018 Vladimir Schneider <vladimir.schneider@xxxxxxxxx>, all rights reserved. * * This code is private property of the copyright holder and cannot be used without * having obtained a license or prior written permission of the of the copyright holder. * * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, * software distributed under the License is distributed on an * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the * specific language governing permissions and limitations * under the License. * */ And some other files: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Avsch%2Fflexmark-java+%22This+code+is+private+property+of+the+copyright+holder%22&type=code OK this is clarified here: https://github.com/vsch/flexmark-java/issues/443 Could you add a ink to this issue in a comment. Also a link to this archive I made in case it closes shop: https://web.archive.org/web/20230827145555/https://github.com/vsch/flexmark-java/issues/443 PR sent to fix the bug: https://github.com/vsch/flexmark-java/pull/590 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 2812 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/flexmark-java/review- flexmark-java/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: flexmark-java (description), flexmark-java-ext- jekyll-tag (description) [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [0]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 35997 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in flexmark-java-test-util , flexmark-java-tree-iteration , flexmark- java-util , flexmark-java-util-ast , flexmark-java-util-builder , flexmark-java-util-collection , flexmark-java-util-data , flexmark- java-util-dependency , flexmark-java-util-experimental , flexmark- java-util-format , flexmark-java-util-html , flexmark-java-util-misc , flexmark-java-util-options , flexmark-java-util-sequence , flexmark- java-util-visitor [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. -- 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=2233317 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233317%23c2 _______________________________________________ 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
