https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273
--- Comment #29 from MartinKG <mgans...@alice.de> --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #28) > (In reply to MartinKG from comment #27) > > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #26) > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa", "GPL (v2 or > > > later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated". > > > 1555 files have unknown license. > > > > License is GPLv3 not GPLv3+. See LICENSE file > > > > done > > > > > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > > > must be documented in the spec. > > > > You should really add a breakdown if possible > > > > done > > I think you misunderstood. There are two licenses provided: CCPL (CC by-sa > v3.0) and GPL. > > According you the readme, all code is GPL v3 (excluding data/common.scm, > which is actually GPLv2+) and all multimedia is CC by-sa v3.0. You can > change the breakdown to the following: > > > # All code is GPLv3 except: > > # asgp/data/common.scm is GPL (v2 or later) > > # All multimedia (pictures, sounds, levels, etc.) is CC BY-SA V3.0 done > As well, asgp/android can be deleted in prep as you shouldn't need these > files for Fedora (thus you should also remove ASL 2.0). > done, delete android and removed ASL 2.0 license > Also please include the full licenses in the data file %license macro like > so: > > > %license asgp/LICENSE asgp/license/* done > Note the %license macro for the main package is not necessary, since the > main package requires the data package, but you may include it if you so > please. > > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > > Note: Directories without known owners: > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, > > > /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/bear-factory > > > > This can be fixed by adding the following to the main package: > > > BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme > > > Requires: hicolor-icon-theme > > > > Which is something I missed when I was reviewing bear. Please fix this. > > > > - add RR hicolor-icon-theme in both packages, I think BR is not required. > > Indeed, the BR is not required, but it should silence the fedora-review > warning. Adding only the RR is fine by me. > > The license issue is the only thing that needs to be fixed. You don't have > to upload another srpm if you don't want to, but please post the new spec > with the suggested changes before I can approve. all suggestions hopefully changed. new spec file only: Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/asgp.spec -- 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
