https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4112 Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4112 --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-07-08 10:18:55 CEST --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0/bin/rfpkg is licensed under GPLv3+ LICENSE file is GPLv2 ?? ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/Downloads/rfpkg-minimal/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: Package installs properly. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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 ===== 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feedbag rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feedbag rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rfpkg rfpkg-minimal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feedbag rfpkg-minimal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feedbag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feeding rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fedpkg -> fed pkg, fed-pkg, feeding rfpkg-minimal.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rfpkg 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- rfpkg-minimal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash curl Provides -------- rfpkg-minimal: rfpkg-minimal Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/TC01/rfpkg-minimal/archive/0.1.0.tar.gz#/rfpkg-minimal... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3691a9fd574f92afa798e5d95e668faacd35b191ff74f776e8988b894eb87c78 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3691a9fd574f92afa798e5d95e668faacd35b191ff74f776e8988b894eb87c78 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386-rpmfusion_free -rn rfpkg-minimal-0.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4112 --- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-07-08 22:44:18 CEST --- That's exciting. This is an issue inherited from fedpkg-minimal that I didn't notice... take a look at: * https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/LICENSE * https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedpkg-minimal.git/tree/bin/fedpkg The fedpkg-minimal spec claims the version is "GPLv2+". https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fedpkg-minimal/sources/ I have filed https://fedorahosted.org/fedpkg-minimal/ticket/2 asking for clarification. In the mean time, should we block on a response to that ticket or assume GPLv2+ for now? Good to know; I agree that this would be better than hardcoding a list of the namespaces in the script. I'll see if I can implement some better string parsing in bash when I get a chance. Sounds good, I'll fix that (and deal with the licensing problem) and upload a new version of the script and package. I do; my github username is TC01 (https://github.com/TC01). Should I fork that repository, push my commit history, and open a pull request? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4112 --- Comment #5 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-07-09 23:32:28 CEST --- Okay, new version uploaded with rfpkg -> rfpkg-minimal and a comment added to the license tag linking to the fedpkg-minimal issue I filed. Spec URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/rfpkg/rfpkg-minimal.spec SRPM URL: https://www.acm.jhu.edu/~bjr/fedora/rfpkg/rfpkg-minimal-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4112 --- Comment #7 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-07-13 18:24:09 CEST --- Great, thanks for the review! Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: rfpkg-minimal Short Description: Fork of fedpkg-minimal for RPM Fusion Owners: tc01 Branches: f24 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4112 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.