https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121594
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review!
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #2)
The package looks qite good to me. Except for the way we have to deal with JS bundling but this is a thing which won't change anytime soon.
Alas, no. In this case, the JS is only needed at build time, so I think this approach is okay.
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file furo.js.LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
^^^ I cannot see it in a source tarball. Likely a build artefact so it can be omitted as well as the previous one.
I see it in the build directory. It has the same contents as LICENSE, so I think we can ignore it.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. I suggest you to explicitly add %license file to the main package as well as for %doc.
Yes, I will add LICENSE to the main package. It is already in there as /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/furo-2022.6.21.dist-info/LICENSE, but it isn't marked as a license; i.e., rpm -qL doesn't show it.
^^^ Please check these invalid-license messages before uploading.
Those are because I used SPDX license names in the License field, but rpmlint doesn't understand SPDX license names yet. Hopefully this will be addressed soon by the rpmlint developers.
It looks good to me. I am going to approve it as is but please address my minor remarks before uploading.
Will do. Thanks again!