Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.1.beta1git65f759c.fc23.src.rpm Description: Un-retired pymssql and returned to the state before it was orphaned. Fedora Account System Username: martinkg guayadeque was retired from git, because the developer of guayadeque has resumed development after a year of abstinence.
I need access for f24 and rawhide branch again.
$ koji list-pkgs --show-blocked --tag f24 --package guayadeque Package Tag Extra Arches Owner ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- --------------- guayadeque f24 martinkg [BLOCKED] $ koji list-pkgs --show-blocked --tag rawhide --package guayadeque Package Tag Extra Arches Owner ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- --------------- guayadeque f25 martinkg [BLOCKED]
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.2.beta1gitd2c0281.fc24.src.rpm %changelog * Sun May 22 2016 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.4.1-0.2.beta1gitd2c0281 - Update to 0.4.1-0.2.beta1gitd2c0281 - Mark license files as %%license where available - Cleanup spec file rpmlint -i guayadeque.spec /home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.2.beta1gitd2c0281.fc24.src.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.2.beta1gitd2c0281.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/guayadeque-debuginfo-0.4.1-0.2.beta1gitd2c0281.fc24.x86_64.rpm guayadeque.spec:29: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-polstra) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. guayadeque.src:29: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-polstra) The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. guayadeque.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guayadeque Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
My suggestion to run a complete new package review. Some general advice: - Are you sure about all BuildRequires? Why subversion-devel? - You can remove Group tag, it's obsolete. - Please provide a proper patch for the desktop file. It makes it easier for further updates. > # deleting Unity parts in guayadeque.desktop files > sed -i '18,38d' runtime/guayadeque.desktop - Are all of the explicit arguments to %cmake needed? Can you build with debug flags instead of release? > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE='Release' > -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX='%{_prefix}' ...
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4) > My suggestion to run a complete new package review. Some general advice: > > - Are you sure about all BuildRequires? Why subversion-devel? done > > - You can remove Group tag, it's obsolete. done > > - Please provide a proper patch for the desktop file. It makes it easier for > further updates. > > # deleting Unity parts in guayadeque.desktop files > > sed -i '18,38d' runtime/guayadeque.desktop done > > - Are all of the explicit arguments to %cmake needed? Can you build with > debug > flags instead of release? > > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE='Release' > > -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX='%{_prefix}' > ... dropped a few Options that are already in %cmake macro Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.3.beta1git35561f6.fc24.src.rpm %changelog * Sun May 22 2016 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.4.1-0.3.beta1git35561f6 - Update to 0.4.1-0.3.beta1git35561f6 - Dropped BR subversion-devel - Removed Group tag, it's obsolete - Addes %%{name}-desktop.patch - Dropped -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX='%%{_prefix}' because it's already in %%cmake macro - Changed -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE='Release' to -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE='Debug'
Review swap? Maybe can you take bug #1279087 or bug #1338553?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/guayadeque See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names => This new review is to unretire the package. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [?]: 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 169 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder /fedora-review/1338140-guayadeque/licensecheck.txt => Please explain why those files with no license header. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. => Source files without license header, see above. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in guayadeque [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. => Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14236630 [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines => see above, licensing/bundling? [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in guayadeque-debuginfo => Ignore. debuginfo is automatically generated. [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. => Latest commit is 13013ff, 2016-05-22. Maybe take this tarball. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. => Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14236630 [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1781760 bytes in /usr/share => Please split locales into a l10n subpackage. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: guayadeque-0.4.1-0.3.beta1git35561f6.fc25.x86_64.rpm guayadeque-debuginfo-0.4.1-0.3.beta1git35561f6.fc25.x86_64.rpm guayadeque-0.4.1-0.3.beta1git35561f6.fc25.src.rpm guayadeque.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guayadeque guayadeque.src:29: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-polstra) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: guayadeque-debuginfo-0.4.1-0.3.beta1git35561f6.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory guayadeque.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guayadeque 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- guayadeque (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3(LIBDBUS_1_3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgpod.so.4()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libtag.so.1()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_adv-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_adv-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_aui-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_aui-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_qa-3.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_qa-3.0.so.0(WXU_3.0)(64bit) libwxcode_gtk3u_wxsqlite3-3.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) guayadeque-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- guayadeque: application() application(guayadeque.desktop) bundled(md5-polstra) guayadeque guayadeque(x86-64) mimehandler(application/ogg) mimehandler(application/x-flac) mimehandler(audio/mp4) mimehandler(audio/mpeg) mimehandler(audio/mpegurl) mimehandler(audio/ogg) mimehandler(audio/x-ape) mimehandler(audio/x-flac) mimehandler(audio/x-m4a) mimehandler(audio/x-mod) mimehandler(audio/x-mp3) mimehandler(audio/x-mpeg) mimehandler(audio/x-mpegurl) mimehandler(audio/x-ms-asf) mimehandler(audio/x-ms-asx) mimehandler(audio/x-ms-wax) mimehandler(audio/x-ms-wma) guayadeque-debuginfo: guayadeque-debuginfo guayadeque-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/anonbeat/guayadeque/archive/35561f6e8b6cef2307a3f589cd4ad096c604d51e/guayadeque-35561f6e8b6cef2307a3f589cd4ad096c604d51e.tar.gz#/guayadeque-35561f6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1e184c0428447e87536204ef0fd5920433ed1709096d0c34ff4a8b51900c29ef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1e184c0428447e87536204ef0fd5920433ed1709096d0c34ff4a8b51900c29ef Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1338140 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Created attachment 1161083 [details] licensecheck.txt for 35561f6
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > Package Review > ============== > ===== MUST items ===== > Generic: > [?]: 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", > "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 169 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder > /fedora-review/1338140-guayadeque/licensecheck.txt > => Please explain why those files with no license header. don't know, will ask upstream. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > => Source files without license header, see above. don't know, will ask upstream. > > [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. > [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > => see above, licensing/bundling? > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > [?]: Package functions as described. > [?]: Latest version is packaged. > => Latest commit is 13013ff, 2016-05-22. Maybe take this tarball. next package will contains the recent version > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1781760 bytes in /usr/share > => Please split locales into a l10n subpackage. don't know how to split in a l10n package, need assistance here.
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.4.beta1git13013ff.fc24.src.rpm %changelog * Wed May 25 2016 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.4.1-0.4.beta1git13013ff - Update to 0.4.1-0.4.beta1git13013ff - Split locales into a l10n subpackage
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.5.beta1git26eaf8d.fc24.src.rpm %changelog * Mon May 30 2016 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.4.1-0.5.beta1git26eaf8d - Update to 0.4.1-0.5.beta1git26eaf8d
> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. Please do so. That's MUST. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios wxCurl has wxWidgets Library License (two files in src/curl and two files in src/wx/curl), so append wxWidgets as short name to License tag. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > => Source files without license header, see above. Licensecheck script fails to detect the header, we overlooked that in first run. SHOULD ask upstream why wxCurl is bundled and try to unbundle. https://github.com/anonbeat/guayadeque/issues/8#issuecomment-222497195 https://sourceforge.net/projects/wxcurl/ Subpackages for locales look nearly good (ignore the rpmlint warnings), except: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/guayadeque, /usr/share/locale/sr_latin, /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/sr_latin, /usr/share/guayadeque => Fix with: %files %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} guayadeque-langpack-sr_latin.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES/guayadeque.mo guayadeque-langpack-sr_latin.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES/guayadeque.mo => sr_latin is not a valid locale identifier, change to sr@latin. https://github.com/anonbeat/guayadeque/issues/6 (Sorry for the delay of my response, I'm quite busy currently.)
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12) > > guayadeque-langpack-sr_latin.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir > /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES/guayadeque.mo > guayadeque-langpack-sr_latin.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES/guayadeque.mo > => sr_latin is not a valid locale identifier, change to sr@latin. > https://github.com/anonbeat/guayadeque/issues/6 > changed sr_latin to sr@latin in the spec file ... %lang_subpkg sr@latin "Serbian (Latin)" %lang_subpkg sv Swedish %lang_subpkg th Thai %lang_subpkg tr Turkish %lang_subpkg uk Ukrainian %prep %setup -qn %{name}-%{commit0} %patch0 -p0 #rm -rf src/curl src/wx/curl mv po/sr-latin po/sr@latin sed -i -e 's|ADD_SUBDIRECTORY( sr-latin )|ADD_SUBDIRECTORY( sr@latin )|' po/CMakeLists.txt sed -i -e 's|sr_latin|sr@latin|' po/sr@latin/CMakeLists.txt ... but @ was detected as Illegal character: [martin@fc24 SPECS]$ rpmbuild -ba guayadeque.spec error: line 71: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: %package langpack-sr@latin need more assistance !
Maybe modify the lang_subpkg macro definition a little bit to include all variants into one subpackage for the same language code, mind the additional star character (*) in the last line. %define lang_subpkg() \ %package langpack-%{1}\ Summary: %{2} language data for %{name}\ BuildArch: noarch \ Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}\ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and langpacks-%{1})\ \ %description langpack-%{1}\ %{2} language data for %{name}.\ \ %files langpack-%{1}\ %{_datadir}/locale/%{1}*/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo ... %lang_subpkg sr "Serbian (Cyrillic and Latin)" %lang_subpkg sv Swedish %lang_subpkg th Thai https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Locale-Names.html
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12) > > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > => Source files without license header, see above. > > Licensecheck script fails to detect the header, we overlooked that in first > run. SHOULD ask upstream why wxCurl is bundled and try to unbundle. > https://github.com/anonbeat/guayadeque/issues/8#issuecomment-222497195 > https://sourceforge.net/projects/wxcurl/ the packaging of wxcurl is currently discussed on the FedoraForum: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=310141 need more assistance ! > Subpackages for locales look nearly good (ignore the rpmlint warnings), > except: > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/guayadeque, > /usr/share/locale/sr_latin, /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/sr_latin, > /usr/share/guayadeque > => Fix with: > %files > %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} > done > guayadeque-langpack-sr_latin.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir > /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES/guayadeque.mo > guayadeque-langpack-sr_latin.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/sr_latin/LC_MESSAGES/guayadeque.mo > => sr_latin is not a valid locale identifier, change to sr@latin. > https://github.com/anonbeat/guayadeque/issues/6 > done new rpm package: Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.6.beta1git79b6383.fc24.src.rpm %changelog * Sat Jun 04 2016 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.4.1-0.6.beta1git79b6383 - Update to 0.4.1-0.6.beta1git79b6383 - Added wxWidgets to License tag - Added %%dir %%{_datadir}/%%{name} because it's owned by the package - modified macro for l10n subpackage
Sorry but I still can not approve. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. Please do so. That's MUST. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. => Report the (partly) bundled wxcurl to Packaging Committee and ask for help. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #16) > Sorry but I still can not approve. > > > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > > must be documented in the spec. > > Please do so. That's MUST. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > is this ok for the licensing breakdown ? SPEC file: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Packages/test/guayadeque.spec due the bundling problem i will ask upstream and the Packaging Comittee.
unbundle wxcurl library is discussed on the Fedora Packaging list, Thread: partly bundled wxcurl in package guayadeque https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org /thread/JN34LTK5HVGEMCOJ45A4AADG2ADKAXCX/
Thanks for the fixes and awareness about wxcurl bundling. APPROVED Small correction for a typo in license breakdown: LGPv2+ should be LGPLv2+.
(In reply to MartinKG from comment #18) > unbundle wxcurl library is discussed on the > Fedora Packaging list, Thread: partly bundled wxcurl in package guayadeque > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject. > org > /thread/JN34LTK5HVGEMCOJ45A4AADG2ADKAXCX/ Per current guidelines, it's not strictly necessary to unbundle anymore. However, I applaud your efforts raising the issue with upstream. Note that you must add Provides: bundled(wxcurl) = wxcurl_version until bundling is resolved. Please also mention the github issue you opened in a comment above that line.
@Raphael Thanks for the review. new rpm package: Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/guayadeque.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/guayadeque-0.4.1-0.7.beta1git79b6383.fc24.src.rpm %changelog * Sun Jun 05 2016 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.4.1-0.7.beta1git79b6383 - Documented licensing breakdown - Added Provides: bundled(wxcurl) = wxcurl_version
I have a problem with unretire the package https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/D5BNMGEGDFXAHXQAEB7AARBEKDMGBIYF/ any help ?
Request that the Release Engineering team unblock the package for the releases that the package should be un-retired for via their trac instance. In this request, please post a link to the completed re-review and clearly specify which branches should be unblocked. https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/newticket
package has been built successfully on fc24 and rawhide.