https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980399
--- Comment #4 from Vratislav Podzimek <vpodz...@redhat.com> --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #2) > $ licensecheck -r * > ntplib.py: LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) > setup.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN > test_ntplib.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN > > The file ntplib.py is that file which we refer to as the software we want to > package. Don't bother with ambiguous license files. The header in ntplib.py > and PKGINFO say LGPL or later versions, so the license tag is LGPLv2+. > Moreover, the CHANGELOG contains this: > > version 0.1.8 - 2010-02-20 > - change to LGPL license > - cleanup I'm changing the tag to LGPLv2+. > Is it possible to run test_ntplib.py in a %check section? Would this make > sense? I was thinking about it, but those tests need network connection and try to poke some NTP servers. They fail e.g. on the networks with blocked NTP traffic to external servers. > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > is an artifact from older Fedora releases. Don't know why rpmdev-newspec > still adds it to a spec file. You can safely drop that line. Dropped. > > You have to add CHANGELOG and COPYING.LESSER to %doc. Hmm, that would mean some further changes as they are not installed by the setup.py anywhere. > > BTW, the incorrect FSF address in ntplib.py is worth to be reported upstream. Patch sent to the upstream maintainer. > > One of the description lines is too long, line 16 has 81 characters. Should > be no more than 80. Fixed. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q8TkBoeaIB&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
