https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2024739
--- Comment #2 from Antonio T. sagitter <trpost(a)rocketmail.com> ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #1)
Just 2-3 minor things to take care of, otherwise everything's
good.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
licensecheck identified the BSD 3-Clause License and the MIT License in
use, so unless I'm wrong and the combination of the two is equivalent to
BSD, the License tag should be "BSD and MIT".
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/include/sdsl(seqan3-devel)
Is there any chance some other package requires the unbundled library,
or can this be avoided somehow?
When this package will be built, seqan3 will no longer provide
/usr/include/sdsl
SPEC file:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/fe...
SRPM:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/fe...
Thank you, Alexander.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2024739