https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972445
Otto Urpelainen <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?([email protected] | |om) --- Comment #12 from Otto Urpelainen <[email protected]> --- I ran fedora-review and otherwise went through everything. Here are still some findings: - Material at servus/md is under different license. Add "and RSA" to License field and explain the breakdown in a comment. As far as I understand, it is required to not distribute a license copy (since the license does not demand it), or to mark md as bundled dependency (since there is no libmd5 or such available). - Due to no policy of upstreaming all patches, the desktop file should be submitted upstream and a link to the pr noted in the specfile. > Requires: pkgconfig > Requires: cmake What is the reason for these? Are these really needed when doing BuildRequires: servus-devel in a depending package? > servus.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(eyescale-cmake-common) > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in servus- > devel Should append '= %{cmake_module_ver}' to Requires line? -- 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
