https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374948 Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |athmanem(a)gmail.com, | |mruprich(a)redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(athmanem(a)gmail.co | |m) --- Comment #2 from Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi, I'm not aware of any policy regarding emulators. Could you be more specific? Perhaps provide some link to anything explaining this? Also there seems to be a problem with the Copr link. I am unable to open it. Could you re-check whether it is correct? -- 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=1374948 Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? -- 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=1374948 Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo- --- Comment #4 from Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Ok I found a note about emulators and the only way to include this would be to provide licenses to the mips microcode as you mentioned at the beginning. I did the review at least on everything that was possible but you should pay attention to the "Package functions as described" part. I commented on that so if I am wrong about this don't hesitate to correct me. If you could provide a link to the review request you posted last time (the one that got rejected) it might give me some more insight on the emulator issue. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: make gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ##Consider removing these dependencies, both are required by default thus no reason to explicitly require them here ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ##Described below [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 309 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mruprich/devel/rev/dynamips/1374948-dynamips/licensecheck.txt ##1. All the files need to be licensed under the same license that is specified in the spec file Either add the license(s) into each file or create a separate file and add %license pointing to this file in the spec file ##2. I am not able to include this in Fedora until the binary blob is permitted by owner and licensed under Fedora permissible license [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 6 files. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ##Mentioned above [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dynamips-debuginfo [!]: Package functions as described. ##From my point of view I am unable to test this - I would need a working cisco router iso image and those are proprietary and not available [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. ##Add the check section if possible [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dynamips-0.2.16-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm dynamips-debuginfo-0.2.16-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm dynamips-0.2.16-1.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dynamips-debuginfo-0.2.16-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- dynamips (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dynamips-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dynamips: dynamips dynamips(x86-64) dynamips-debuginfo: dynamips-debuginfo dynamips-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/GNS3/dynamips/archive/v0.2.16/dynamips-0.2.16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0fcf18d701898a77cb589bd9bad16dde436ac1ccb87516fefe07d09de1a196c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fcf18d701898a77cb589bd9bad16dde436ac1ccb87516fefe07d09de1a196c0 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1374948 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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=1374948 Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(athmanem(a)gmail.co | |m) --- Comment #6 from Michal Ruprich <mruprich(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi Athmane, there are some more issues mentioned in the review. I will repeat them here: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ##Described below [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 309 files have unknown license. ##1. All the files need to be licensed under the same license that is specified in the spec file (or a combination of licenses) ##2. I am not able to include this in Fedora until the binary blob is permitted by owner and licensed under Fedora permissible license (but you mentioned that in the beginning) ##3. the comment about 309 files without license i because there are no license(s) texts in each file [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ##Mentioned above [!]: Package functions as described. ##From my point of view I am unable to test this - I would need a working cisco router iso image and those are proprietary and not available, but I may be wrong [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. ##Add the check section if possible Please have a look at these. Thanks Michal -- 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=1374948 Athmane Madjoudj <athmanem(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(athmanem(a)gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #8 from Athmane Madjoudj <athmanem(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thank you for the heads up. These days, GNS3 is quite usable without dynamips since most of network vendors are providing x86 version of their OS as KVM/QEMU image. eg: https://docs.gns3.com/appliances/cisco-iosv.html (A valid Cisco account is needed) -- 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