https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001467
--- Comment #1 from Carl George 🤠 <carl(a)redhat.com> ---
The srpm rename and the addition of the tree subpackage look good to me. This
approach avoids the need for obsoletes/provides. However, fedora-review turned
up a few unrelated items that need to be corrected.
================================================================================
The file strverscmp.c is licensed under LGPLv2+. This must be reflected in the
License field, with a corresponding comment explaining the multiple licensing
breakdown. I suggest:
-License: GPLv2+
+# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except strverscmp.c which is LGPLv2+
+License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
================================================================================
The LICENSE file must be marked as %license in %files.
-%doc README LICENSE
+%license LICENSE
+%doc README
================================================================================
rpmlint found an incorrect FSF address in the LICENSE file. This doesn't need
to be fixed in the package, but must be reported upstream. I also suggest
including a comment in the spec file about the upstream status.
tree.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/tree/LICENSE
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
================================================================================
All patches should be sent upstream and the spec file should have a comment
regarding their upstream status.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamSt...
--
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=2001467