Spec URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/octave-flexiblas.spec SRPM URL: https://iucar.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/octave-flexiblas-3.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51825419 Description: FlexiBLAS is a BLAS wrapper library which allows to change the BLAS without recompiling the programs. Fedora Account System Username: iucar
The spec file is well written and follows the packaging guidelines. The license is correctly identified and valid for Fedora (GPLv3+). Running fedora-review on this package identifies a real issue in this case: - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text You can fix this, marking COPYING with %license when importing the package to Fedora. The package is approved.
One question. From the Octave guidelines, it is not clear to me whether the COPYING file needs to be marked with %license. It says it is expected under the packinfo directory, but then only this directory is listed in the template. In fact, other existing packages do have the COPYING file, but it's not explicitly listed. E.g., https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/octave-statistics/blob/master/f/octave-statistics.spec $ dnf repoquery -l octave-statistics | grep COPYING /usr/share/octave/packages/statistics-1.4.1/packinfo/COPYING
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/octave-flexiblas
(In reply to Iñaki Ucar from comment #2) > One question. From the Octave guidelines, it is not clear to me whether the > COPYING file needs to be marked with %license. It says it is expected under > the packinfo directory, but then only this directory is listed in the > template. In fact, other existing packages do have the COPYING file, but > it's not explicitly listed. E.g., > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/octave-statistics/blob/master/f/octave- > statistics.spec > > $ dnf repoquery -l octave-statistics | grep COPYING > /usr/share/octave/packages/statistics-1.4.1/packinfo/COPYING There are two issues here. 1) Most of the these packages have been submitted before the introduction of the %license field. 2) The requirement to add %license when a file is present applies to all fedora packages. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ This is quite similar to the R packages in this regard, the license file is present in some directory and also identified as %license. I hope that this makes sense and answers your question. :-)
It does, thanks. Marked as license in the initial import. We would need to review the set of octave packages to fix this I suppose. But not my battle right now. :)
FEDORA-2020-432dd68434 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-432dd68434
FEDORA-2020-432dd68434 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-432dd68434 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-432dd68434 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-432dd68434 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.