https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2024739
--- Comment #2 from Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #1)
Just 2-3 minor things to take care of, otherwise everything's good.
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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
licensecheck identified the BSD 3-Clause License and the MIT License in
use, so unless I'm wrong and the combination of the two is equivalent to BSD, the License tag should be "BSD and MIT".
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/sdsl(seqan3-devel)
Is there any chance some other package requires the unbundled library,
or can this be avoided somehow?
When this package will be built, seqan3 will no longer provide /usr/include/sdsl
SPEC file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/fedor... SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/fedor...
Thank you, Alexander.