https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972445
Otto Urpelainen <otu...@iki.fi> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |otu...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Otto Urpelainen <otu...@iki.fi> ---
> For the bundling probably FESCO exception will be needed.
Not anymore, nowadays the packager can decide to leave bundled dependencies in
if upstream does not support using system libraries instead.
---
I would have taken this if Rafael did not beat me to it. Anyhow, I did a
complete review, here are my findings:
> License: LGPLv3 and RSA
Since this is a multiple licensing situation, the specfile must contain a
comment explaining the license breakdown.
Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
> Provides: bundled(eyescale-cmake-common)
This is a build time only dependency, right? I wonder if the policy for bundled
dependencies applies as-is to such case. Certainly the objective of flagging
the bundling is achieved, I just wonder if it would be useful to also flag that
it is a build time thing. Should we ask in the devel list about this?
Reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
> %package doc
Is the doc subpackage needed? Currently, there are no %files entry for it, and
it seems that (probably because of that) there is no rpm for the subpackage
either. And all the docs go to the main package — which is fine, since there is
not a lot of them. You could just remove the doc subpackage from the specfile.
Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
> #%%license COPYING
This must be fixed. LGPLv3 requires distributing the full license text with
each copy, so it must be included in the rpm.
Licensing guidelines allow you to add it, if you have contacted upstream, which
you have done. So either wait for upstream response, or add the correct license
files. According to gnu.org, the standard way would be to add COPYING and
COPYING.LESSER with GPLv3 and LGPLv3 texts:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
> %{_libdir}/*.so.*
Globbing all shared objects like this SHOULD NOT be done. At least the major
version number should be fixed, so that ABI breaks are noticed on updates. So
do %{_libdir}/libSerevus.so.6* etc. instead.
Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
> servusBrowser
This is a gui application, so it needs to have a desktop file.
Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files
Strangely, the review guidelines also allow to put a comment in specfile
explaining why a desktop file is not needed. I cannot find any basis for that
from the Packaging Guidelines.
--
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
