https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051066 --- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin <alebastr89(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hello Jakub, Thanks for the review! All 3 files are wayland protocol definitions which are not linked directly into the binary. These are processed with `wayland-scanner` to a C source and the existing practice was to consider these generated sources licensed the same as the main project. I'm going to add a following comment above the License tag, based on what we have in wlroots.spec: # The main source is MIT # The included wayland protocol files: # external/river-status-unstable-v1.xml: ISC # external/wlr-foreign-toplevel-management-unstable-v1.xml: HPND-sell-variant # external/wlr-layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml: HPND-sell-variant # Those files are processed to C-compilable files by the # `wayland-scanner` binary during build and don't alter # the main license of the binaries linking with them by # the underlying licenses. I've been maintaining the package in my copr for wayland-related things for a while. Pre-release versioning ensures that if I import the package into Fedora repos with the proper Release tag, it will have a higher NVR and will seamlessly replace the copr build (and it looks like I forgot to do that for 1.8.0 :( ). I'm not going to preserve the changelog from copr anyways, as it does not carry any information useful for Fedora. -- 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=2051066

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051066 --- Comment #4 from Aleksei Bavshin <alebastr89(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/yambar/yambar.spec SRPM URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/yambar/yambar-1.8.0-1.fc38.src.rpm (In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #3) I feel that I need to clarify that this is not valid in the context of Fedora :-) Pre-release versioning should be used for pre-release upstream versions (i.e. 1.8.0-0.1.rc1). I'm just abusing the versioning scheme because I don't have a better way to ensure that my copr builds will always have lower NVR compared to a package imported to the main repositories after the review. -- 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=2051066

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051066 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik(a)redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "ISC License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant". 119 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/yambar/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in yambar- devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://codeberg.org/dnkl/yambar/archive/1.8.0.tar.gz#/yambar-1.8.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 51127d20613666b9924deb9afd92c48d69815c5043d2996b3f0f6e9705fcabc8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51127d20613666b9924deb9afd92c48d69815c5043d2996b3f0f6e9705fcabc8 Requires -------- yambar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfcft.so.4()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5(JSONC_0.14)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpdclient.so.2()(64bit) libmpdclient.so.2(libmpdclient2)(64bit) libpixman-1.so.0()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-cursor.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-cursor.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-render.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-util.so.1()(64bit) libxcb-xkb.so.1()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) libyaml-0.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) yambar-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yambar(x86-64) yambar-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yambar-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- yambar: application() application(yambar.desktop) yambar yambar(x86-64) yambar-devel: yambar-devel yambar-devel(x86-64) yambar-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) yambar-debuginfo yambar-debuginfo(x86-64) yambar-debugsource: yambar-debugsource yambar-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name yambar --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2051066

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051066 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223 -- 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=2051066

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051066 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-f2c240a532 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f2c240a532 -- 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=2051066

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051066 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=2051066

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051066 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-08-28 23:05:34 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-3b36da5724 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2051066

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051066 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-ef83aaa223 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2051066