https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249418 --- Comment #19 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Oops, took me a while – I need to stay on top of this better… (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #18) > [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public > License, Version 2 and/or GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU > General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public > License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, > Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser > General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General > Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or > later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public > License v3.0 or later". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2249418-jack-example- > tools/licensecheck.txt To my knowledge, the license fields match the actual licenses of the files shipped in the respective subpackages. > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: [...] > [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jack- > example-tools-common , jack-examples-server The -common subpackage is noarch, it only contains documentation and license texts. > [ ]: Package functions as described. > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: … 😀 > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. All patches link to upstream PRs: --- 8< --- Source0: https://github.com/jackaudio/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz # https://github.com/jackaudio/jack-example-tools/pull/82 Patch: 0001-Don-t-use-gethostbyname.patch # https://github.com/jackaudio/jack-example-tools/pull/83 Patch: 0001-Update-FSF-address-in-GPLv2-license-texts.patch # https://github.com/jackaudio/jack-example-tools/pull/84 Patch: 0001-Add-LGPL-v2.1-license-text.patch BuildRequires: gcc --- >8 --- > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) The spec file uses rpmautospec, the spec file in the SRPM will therefore always be different because release field and changelog section are computed/generated and filled in – `fedpkg srpm` processes the spec file when building the SRPM. > Comments: > a) Builds on all architectures: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=109664151 I don’t understand the comment – it builds on all arches, doesn’t it? > b) Please remove patch to update FSF address, should not change license > files distributed with the software, > just let upstream know about it, if the accept your pull request, can > include changes in the next version. I can’t find anything in the Packaging Guidelines indicating that updating the FSF address in copies of the GPL is out of bounds. After all, this change doesn’t modify the licensing conditions and helps users who want to get a copy of the license from the FSF. > c) Please also create a pull request upstream for LGPL license, the contact I don’t understand, I did this already: --- 8< --- # https://github.com/jackaudio/jack-example-tools/pull/84 Patch: 0001-Add-LGPL-v2.1-license-text.patch --- >8 --- > author for that file seems to be active: > https://github.com/pauldavisthefirst Paul last contributed to this in 2012, while it still was part of the jack code base itself. I think he’s moved on from working on JACK. FalkTX who worked on this last seems to occasionally commit changes, but my PRs are still untouched. > Maybe it should be GPL like all the others? The LGPL is a different license, I don’t see why we should do that. -- 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=2249418 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202249418%23c19 -- _______________________________________________ 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
