Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mohd-akram/stdman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04177194-stdman/stdman.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mohd-akram/stdman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04177194-stdman/stdman-2021.12.21-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: C++ standard library man pages generated from cppreference.com HTML files Fedora Account System Username: mohd-akram
Hmm, how is the License tag derived? The content is from cppreference.com, but I couldn't find a license specification anywhere.
MIT license is for stdman itself, the other two are for cppreference (see https://en.cppreference.com/w/Cppreference:FAQ).
Ah, the link is https://en.cppreference.com/w/Cppreference:FAQ#What_can_I_do_with_the_material_on_this_site.3F Please add that in a comment in the spec file. So this looks all good, but the license should *not* include MIT [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field]: > The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. I'd suggest %autorelease+%autochangelog to reduce the maintenance burden: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/opting-in.html
Ah, I was wondering about that. Should I also remove the %license from the files?
Yes.
Cool, I updated the files with the changes.
+ package name is OK + license is acceptable (GFDL and CC-BY-SA) + license is specified correctly + builds and installs OK + latest version + R/P/BR look OK rpmlint complains that there's a number of identical files. Certain files are copied even 5 times. It's not a big deal: the whole package is 4 MB. If you wanted to fix this, it'd be possible to either use symlinks, or to replace the content in duplicate files with '.so <name-of-the-real-file>'. But it's probably not worth the trouble. Package is APPROVED.
Maybe the following: BuildRequires: jdupes %prep: ... sed -i /gzip/d do_install %install: ... jdupes -r -l %{buildroot}%{_mandir} This has also the advantage that the distro compression settings are used. gzip is now used by default, but I think we'll be switching to zstd at some point.
Package repository was never requested, resetting fedora-review flag.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
I can re-review if an update is submitted.