https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828205
--- Comment #21 from David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com> ---
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
It does not.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
It does now.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
MIT is approved.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Boost
Software
License (v1.0)", "Expat License Boost Software License (v1.0)",
"*No
copyright* GNU General Public License (v3)", "Apache License
(v2.0)".
199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dcantrell/doctest/licensecheck.txt
Everything in the project is licensed under the MIT license noted in
LICENSE.txt in the source. licensecheck.txt contains false information where
it is misdetecting some licenses.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Yep.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
None.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Yes.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Yes.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
N/A
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
Yes.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
Correct.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded
directory
names).
Yes.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Yes.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
None.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
Yes, as much as cmake allows.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes
and
Provides are present.
N/A
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
N/A
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
Yes.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
N/A
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
N/A
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
N/A
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be
size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 files.
N/A
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Yes
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A, license already included.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
Yes.
[ ]: Package functions as described.
Yes.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
Yes.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
Yes.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
N/A
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file
contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
N/A
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported
architectures.
N/A
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Yes
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original
installed
files.
Yes
--
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