https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235082 Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(gui1ty@penguinpee | |.nl) | --- Comment #5 from Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Copying the issues mentioned in the initial review here: (In reply to Sandro from comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues > ====== > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* > Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD > 2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views > sentence", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 76 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- > rpmbuild/results/python-saneyaml/licensecheck.txt > > => Some scripts appear to carry a different license. Please clarify. I don't see any change in the license field. Could you address the issue with the multitude of licenses please? > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > When installing the doc subpackage, no license files are installed. One > solution is to make it require the main package. I, personally don't like the solution you chose. Now, if both the main and the doc sub package are installed, the license files are duplicated. How much sens does it make or how likely is it that someone would want to install the doc sub package without the main package? Food for thought. But this is no longer blocking the review. But also see my remark below. > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > > => One error was found: > python3-saneyaml.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/saneyaml.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > > Probably needs a shebang removal. Haven't checked. The issue is not solved. `%py3_shebang_fix` puts the correct shebang in the file. But the issue is that the file has a shebang, but is not executable. It shouldn't be executable, since it is not meant to be run standalone. So, the shebang needs to be removed - not changed - to resolve the error. > [ ] Most of the questions I asked in bug 2235084 comment 2 apply here as > well. 3. Duplicate license files All license files are defined in `license_files` in `setup.cfg`. That means `%pyproject_save_files` treats them as such and marks them as license files. Use `rpm -q --licensefiles -p $RPM` to verify. Long story short, you can drop `%license`. Since the above applies to this package (see rpm -q --licensefiles -p python3-saneyaml-0.6.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm) you are already duplicating the license files. With the doc sub package installed they are even tripled. -- 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=2235082 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235082%23c5 _______________________________________________ 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
