[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #16 from Benson Muite --- The assumption is that the READMEs describe restrictions on the code. GPL licenses are usually put at the top of every file, this helps in tracking things, but usually one reads the license files and any other documentation. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c16 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #15 from Denny Dalessandro --- I have already started the process of contacting legal to ask about modifying the README files. Is it just the READMEs that are the issue though? There is a section of "Unknown or generated" that don't have particular licenses attached. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c15 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #14 from Benson Muite --- (In reply to Denny Dalessandro from comment #13) > (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #12) > > > > May want to check with egal, it is not o nthe > > allowed list > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ > > > > The export restriction modifies it from BSD-3-Clause > > I took the "EXPORT LAWS" clause to be separate from the BSD license. Hmm. > Not sure what do make of that. I see you made this Bug block 182235, can we > expect a response there? I'm not sure how this works. We inherited all of > this stuff when we spun out from Intel and I'm assuming no one ever noticed > because this stuff has been in distros for years. Can check for Fedora and follow up with legal team, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#_legal_issues https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Perhaps check with Cornelis Networks and/or Intel legal teams. Can the "EXPORT LAWS" clause be removed? Some cryptography packages have similar warnings, but usually this is for importing entities to check on their local regulations. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c14 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #13 from Denny Dalessandro --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #12) > > May want to check with egal, it is not o nthe > allowed list > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ > > The export restriction modifies it from BSD-3-Clause I took the "EXPORT LAWS" clause to be separate from the BSD license. Hmm. Not sure what do make of that. I see you made this Bug block 182235, can we expect a response there? I'm not sure how this works. We inherited all of this stuff when we spun out from Intel and I'm assuming no one ever noticed because this stuff has been in distros for years. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c13 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #12 from Benson Muite --- (In reply to Denny Dalessandro from comment #11) > Looks like the iquickmap.c file is ancient and I'm not finding any current > project with it so we will need to go based off of the content in the file > which just indicates GPLv2. Doesn't say "or later". > > So I will go with: > License: (GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause) OR (BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause) > Ok. > The Intel open source thing is just on README files not on any of the code. > I don't think we need to worry about that do we? May want to check with egal, it is not o nthe allowed list https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ The export restriction modifies it from BSD-3-Clause Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c12 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #11 from Denny Dalessandro --- Looks like the iquickmap.c file is ancient and I'm not finding any current project with it so we will need to go based off of the content in the file which just indicates GPLv2. Doesn't say "or later". So I will go with: License: (GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause) OR (BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause) The Intel open source thing is just on README files not on any of the code. I don't think we need to worry about that do we? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c11 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite ---
Please change
License: GPLv2 or BSD
to
License: (GPL-2.0-or-Later AND BSD-3-Clause) OR (BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause)
or
License: (GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-3-Clause) OR (BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause)
see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/spdx/#_spdx_matching_guidelines
https://github.com/cornelisnetworks/opa-fm/blob/master/IbAccess/Common/Public/iquickmap.c
Check on original sources for iquickmap.c to determine if it is GPL-2.0-only or
GPL-2.0-or-later
The main license file seems to just be BSD-3-Clause, perhaps also add a brief
explanation
of which files are under which license.
Intel Open Source License also seems to be used (please check if it is only for
build files, or also for applies to code in shipped binaries):
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2316327-opa-fm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08127067-opa-fm/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt
Ideally, each of the licenses would have a license file in the repository, in
addition to each file having an indication which license it is under.
Is it possible to
For the files listing, you want something like
%license LICENSE
%doc README.md
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/opa-fm
%{_sysconfdir}/opa-fm/dgs
%{_sysconfdir}/opa-fm/*.xml
%{_sysconfdir}/opa-fm/vfs
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/config_check
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/config_convert
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/config_diff
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/config_generate
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/fm_capture
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/fm_cmd
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/fm_cmdall
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/opafm
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/opafmconfigpp
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/opafmctrl
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/opafmd
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/opafmvf
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/opafmxmlextract
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/opafmxmlfilter
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin/smpoolsize
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm/runtime
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/runtime/fe
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/runtime/sm
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm/systemd
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm/systemd/system
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/systemd/system/opafm.service
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm/systemd/system/sbin
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/systemd/system/sbinopafmcmd
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/systemd/system/sbin/opafmcmdall
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/systemd/system/sbin/opafmconfigpp
%{_libdir}/opa-fm/systemd/system/sbin/opafmvf
%dir %{_docdir}/opa-fm
%{_mandir}/man8/opafmcmd.*
%{_mandir}/man8/opafmcmdall.*
%{_mandir}/man8/opafmconfigpp.*
%dir %{_datadir}/opa-fm
%{_datadir}/opa-fm/*.xml
%dir %{_datadir}/opa-fm/samples
%{_datadir}/opa-fm/samples/*.cnf-sample
Binary files and libraries should be explicitly listed, though and
configuration files can be globbed
The install script hard copies using lib, and it would be better to use lib64
on 64bit architectures:
https://github.com/cornelisnetworks/opa-fm/blob/master/Esm/fm_install.sh#L43
Created a pull request to fix this:
https://github.com/cornelisnetworks/opa-fm/pull/33
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c10
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://github.com/cornelis ||networks/opa-fm --- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8127067 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316327-opa-fm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08127067-opa-fm/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2 or BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/opa-fm/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c9 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #8 from Denny Dalessandro --- Updates: SRPM: https://github.com/cornelisnetworks/opa-fm/releases/download/opa-fm-v10.12.1.0.6-2/opa-fm-10.12.1.0.6-3.fc40.src.rpm SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cornelisnetworks/opa-fm/refs/tags/opa-fm-v10.12.1.0.6-2/Packaging/Fedora/opa-fm.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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c8 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #7 from Denny Dalessandro --- Yeah I fixed the unowned directories. It wasn't clear to me if the FHS error was related to that or not. Ah for the name of the spec file easy fix. Will post a new version. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c7 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite ---
You can manage the spec file in a git repository, but the name should just be
opa-fm.spec not opa-fm.fedora.spec, perhaps put in a subdirectory
packaging>fedora>opa-fm.spec
For unowned directories see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/#_forgetting_to_include_a_toplevel_directory
For
/usr/share/opa-fm
add
%dir %{_datadir}/opa-fm
For
/usr/lib/opa-fm/bin
/usr/lib/opa-fm
/usr/lib/opa-fm/runtime
These should likely be in /usr/lib64
You would then add
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm/bin
%dir %{_libdir}/opa-fm/runtime
Globbing is also generally best avoided:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c6
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #5 from Denny Dalessandro --- I think I fixed the part about not owning all directories. Strange that this is flagged since this spec file comes from a RedHat package. However, any insight as to what: [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. means? We add directories to /usr/lib, /usr/sbin/, /usr/share, and /etc. Then this one: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/opa-fm/2316327-opa-fm.fedora/srpm- unpacked/opa-fm.fedora.spec See: (this test has no URL) So this is saying we should NOT include the spec file in the SRPM? That means I can't check it into git and have github generate the "release" tarball. Where do other packages store their spec files? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c5 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327
Benson Muite changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /etc/opa-fm/opafm.xml
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2 or BSD'. It seems that you are
using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for
converting it to SPDX.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/opa-fm/2316327-opa-
fm.fedora/diff.txt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: opa-fm.fedora.spec should be opa-fm.spec
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/opa-fm, /usr/lib/opa-fm/bin,
/usr/lib/opa-fm, /usr/lib/opa-fm/runtime
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/opa-fm, /usr/lib/opa-
fm/runtime, /usr/share/opa-fm, /usr/lib/opa-fm/bin
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when mak
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #3 from Benson Muite --- Link to spec file should be something that can be downloaded using wget or similar tool. spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cornelisnetworks/opa-fm/refs/tags/opa-fm-v10.12.1.0.6/opa-fm.fedora.spec srpm: https://github.com/cornelisnetworks/opa-fm/releases/download/opa-fm-v10.12.1.0.6/opa-fm-10.12.1.0.6-2.fc40.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c3 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8106209 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2316327-opa-fm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08106209-opa-fm/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2 or BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/opa-fm/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - opa-fm.fedora.spec should be opa-fm.spec Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c2 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2316327] Review Request: opa-fm - Cornelis Networks Fabric Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Denny Dalessandro changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bc...@redhat.com, ||dennis.dalessandro@cornelis ||networks.com, ||kh...@redhat.com, ||mschm...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Denny Dalessandro --- Hi Folks, I took the srpm from RHEL and incorporated the 3 patches that were sitting there. I touched up the spec file and pushed the branch. Functionally this is no different otherwise than the existing package in RHEL. We have a new release that should be posted soon and I'll update at that point, but we can start the approval process now I suppose. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316327 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316327%23c1 -- ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
