https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467
--- Comment #3 from Till Hofmann thofmann@fedoraproject.org --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #2)
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #1)
fedora-review complained about a LICENSE file that was not declared with the macro and it turns out that it belongs to spdlog, which is bundled together. We already have spdlog in the repos, do you need to have the bundled version for some reason?
Darn touchpads, I posted it by accident. Continuing:
By the way, if it needs to be bundled, then I guess you ought to have both licenses, LGPLv3+ and MIT and a comment explaining why that is.
Thanks for pointing out the bundled spdlog, somehow I forgot about it. But I'm working on a patch to unbundle. I'll update when I'm done.
There's also the issue with the address of the FSF, which should be corrected upstream.
I'll file a PR.
Is there a reason for not including and running the testsuite (which would add a whole bunch of licenses) in %check?
Yes, some of them fail, even in the upstream CI pipeline.
The NEWS and Changelog files are empty and rpmlint complains: freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/ChangeLog freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/NEWS
Since they serve no purpose, they should be eliminated, until upstream decides to add something to them.
Will do.
The source URL is giving me a 500 Internal Server Error, but I think GitHub is glitching at the moment.
Kudos on submitting the patches upstream and soname versioning.