mup is a music notation and printing program with both GUI and CLI interfaces for authoring and printing music notation.
rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mup-6.1-1.x86_64.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm
mup.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I've made a few changes to the .spec file to move things into proper directories for FHS compliance, and created a .desktop file so that mupmate shows up in the desktop menus.
rpmlint SPECS/mup.spec RPMS/x86_64/mup* SRPMS/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
mup.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
mup-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
mup.src: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
I put "Arkkra Mup License" because the license, while very similar to one of the BSD variants, doesn't match exactly.
I get bonus points :-) for posting a link to a successful koji build, so here goes:
The license http://www.arkkra.com/doc/license.html looks like 2 clause BSD but with the addition
3. Any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files
must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation.
including the reasons for the changes,
and the names of those who made the modifications
Greg: please don't hijack other people's review requests. Comments #2 and #3 might lead one to believe you are the submitter.
Susi, I have spoken to Greg, he is going to make an new bug submission. He is upstream.
All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of BSD. Can you guys check to make sure?
(In reply to comment #4)
> All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of
> BSD. Can you guys check to make sure?
Let's wait for spot. This should be a no-brainer.
Another comment, their license looks FOSS to me, so I am unsure of the FE-LEGAL block. Maybe it could be considered under "Good licenses"
(In reply to comment #3)
> Greg: please don't hijack other people's review requests. Comments #2 and #3
> might lead one to believe you are the submitter.
Apologies for any perceived hijacking; I was attempting to work with Brendan and he volunteered to pass this off. I was unaware that I was required to make my own review request until he stated so...
(In reply to comment #4)
> Susi, I have spoken to Greg, he is going to make an new bug submission. He
> is upstream.
I've submitted BZ #906411.
FYI, Brendan, I'm not upstream, just a long-time user of Mup.
Can someone please explain to me why there now are two active Review Requests for this package? Is it possible to only have one? :)
Closing - see bug 906411
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 906411 ***