https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991202
--- Comment #7 from Didik Supriadi <didiksupriadi41(a)gmail.com> ---
Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xpp3
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
This is expected
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/chronoelves/xpp3/diff.txt
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ This is
expected
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools
(jpackage-utils)
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java I just installed the
fedora-review-plugin-java, and this issue came out.
I think it doesn't allow you to BR javapackages-local and BR maven-local
instead (?)
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache License 1.1", "Unknown or generated", "IBM
Public
License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later
[obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place), obsolete FSF postal
address (Temple Place)]". 298 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/chronoelves/xpp3/licensecheck.txt
licensecheck.txt output:
Apache License 1.1
------------------
xpp3-1.1.4c/LICENSE.txt
xpp3-1.1.4c/doc/acknowledgement/LICENSE.txt
xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/ant/LICENSE.txt
GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal
address (Temple Place), obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/xmlpull/LICENSE_TESTS.txt
xpp3-1.1.4c/src/java/tests/LICENSE_TESTS.txt
IBM Public License 1.0
----------------------
xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/junit/LICENSE.txt
for IBM and LGPLv2+, they consist of "tests" and file from lib/ folder.
Looking at them, it probably good to remove the lib/ folder, but Idk you should
get rid of the "tests" folder or not.
So leaving us with "License: ASL 1.1"
But after some research, from
https://search.maven.org/artifact/xpp3/xpp3/1.1.4c/jar, it should be "License:
ASL 1.1 and BSD and Public Domain"
(Indiana License looks like BSD, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD)
Meanwhile, from
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/xpp3/xpp3/1.1.4c, it should
be "License: ASL 1.1 and CC0 and Public Domain"
So I don't know for sure which licenses are the correct one.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
xpp3-minimal
is this not applicable?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component