https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398340
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim <jonnyheggh...@sigaint.org> --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 52 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1398340-python- > trezor/licensecheck.txt > > BSD (3 clause) trezor-0.7.7/trezorlib/protobuf_json.py > All source files are without license headers (the one exception to the > above). > Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, > and add license headers > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification Created issue and added comment in spec file: https://github.com/trezor/python-trezor/issues/84 Next version will include license header. > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > trezor-0.7.7/trezorlib/protobuf_json.py Added Provides: bundled(python-protobuf-json) = 0.0.5 and created isssue https://github.com/trezor/python-trezor/issues/86 > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > Please, add a comment Created issue https://github.com/trezor/python-trezor/issues/85 The next version will include a fix. > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) I have deleted the old SRPM files and hope that helps -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
