Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/coin-or-Data-Netlib/coin-or-Data-Netlib.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/coin-or-Data-Netlib/coin-or-Data-Netlib-1.2.7-1.fc31.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package contains the COmputational INfrastructure for Operations Research (COIN-OR) models from netlib for testing.
- No license file, no documentation? - I have no way of checking the actual license anywhere
The coin-or project is pretty good about including license files in their code projects, but they don't seem to feel the need to do so for their data libraries. If you look in configure.ac, you'll see this on lines 17 to 21: AC_COPYRIGHT([ Copyright 2006 International Business Machines and others. All Rights Reserved. This file is part of the open source package Coin which is distributed under the Eclipse Public License.]) This doesn't specify the version of the Eclipse Public License, but if you look into the coin-or-* projects we already have in Fedora, they all include the version 1.0 license text. (I am in the process of updating those existing packages, and this package is a new dependency. Their License fields will soon be corrected from "EPL" to "EPL-1.0".) On the other hand, the coin-or-Sample package was added to Fedora under a "Public Domain" license; see bug 894610. Maybe that is what should be done here, too. I am uncertain about this.
Ok. Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Eclipse Public License", "Expat License". 100 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/coin-or-Data-Netlib/review- coin-or-Data-Netlib/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/coin(coin-or- Sample), /usr/share/coin/Data(coin-or-Sample) [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. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: coin-or-Data-Netlib : /usr/share/pkgconfig/coindatanetlib.pc [-]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: coin-or-Data-Netlib-1.2.7-1.fc31.noarch.rpm coin-or-Data-Netlib-1.2.7-1.fc31.src.rpm coin-or-Data-Netlib.noarch: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 coin-or-Data-Netlib.noarch: W: no-documentation coin-or-Data-Netlib.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/coindatanetlib.pc coin-or-Data-Netlib.src: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Due to my sloth, the repos were not created within 60 days. For purposes of re-review, here are the latest URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/coin-or-Data-Netlib/coin-or-Data-Netlib.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/coin-or-Data-Netlib/coin-or-Data-Netlib-1.2.8-1.fc31.src.rpm
Reapproved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coin-or-Data-Netlib