https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001467
Kamil Dudka <kdudka(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kdudka(a)redhat.com,
| |twaugh(a)redhat.com
Flags| |needinfo?(twaugh(a)redhat.com
| |)
--- Comment #2 from Kamil Dudka <kdudka(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #1)
The srpm rename and the addition of the tree subpackage look good to
me.
This approach avoids the need for obsoletes/provides. However,
fedora-review turned up a few unrelated items that need to be corrected.
Thanks for review!
================================================================================
The file strverscmp.c is licensed under LGPLv2+. This must be reflected in
the License field, with a corresponding comment explaining the multiple
licensing breakdown. I suggest:
-License: GPLv2+
+# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except strverscmp.c which is LGPLv2+
+License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
Fixed.
================================================================================
The LICENSE file must be marked as %license in %files.
-%doc README LICENSE
+%license LICENSE
+%doc README
Fixed.
================================================================================
rpmlint found an incorrect FSF address in the LICENSE file. This doesn't
need to be fixed in the package, but must be reported upstream. I also
suggest including a comment in the spec file about the upstream status.
tree.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tree/LICENSE
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
Fixed.
================================================================================
All patches should be sent upstream and the spec file should have a comment
regarding their upstream status.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamSt...
Unfortunately, there is no upstream bug tracker or mailing-list we could refer
to. I have never received any reply from upstream on the
tree-static-analysis.patch posted in 2018:
bug #1602718 comment #2
Not sure about the other patches that I inherited from the previous maintainer.
There is no info about upstream status in the corresponding bugs in Red Hat
Bugzilla:
bug #812934
bug #948991
bug #997937
Tim, could you please confirm that fixes for the above bugs have been sent
upstream?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001467