https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729
Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gordon.messmer@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer@gmail.com --- Hello, Marek. I am also not yet sponsored, but I would like to offer some feedback which might help you get this package through the review process more quickly when a sponsored packager looks at it. These are merely suggestions, but I believe that a reviewer will flag each of these issues:
1: "MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license."
The LICENSE.txt file appears to indicate that this project uses GPLv3+, with an exception to allow linking to OpenSSL. Your spec indicates GPLv2+, but I believe that "GPLv3+ with exceptions" would be appropriate. I might be wrong.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
2: "MUST: 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 must be included in %license"
You should add "%license LICENSE.txt" to the spec.
3: I would recommend making a koji scratch build in order to demonstrate that the package builds in mock:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Insta...
4: "The BuildRoot: tag, Group: tag, and %clean section SHOULD NOT be used."
You should remove the BuildRoot tag and the %clean section:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...