Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505184 --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-06-12 14:16:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > rpmlint output: > > xorriso.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/xorriso.pc > > Removed during %install and also communicated with upstream to remove it, he > agreed. OK, please add comment about this to the spec file. > > NEEDSWORK > > - License is GPLv2 and GPL+ and (LGPLv2+ or MIT), not GPLv2. > > * Most of the files are under GPLv2. > > * cleanup is under GPL license (GPL+) > > * make_isohybrid_mr is LGPLv2+ or MIT. > > fixed to: GPLv2 and GPL and LGPLv2+ You are missing the + from GPL. Please use my version.. > > SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from > > upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK > > - Not all licenses are included. > > Communicated with upstream. What should i do with this, start > hunting those files myself (not preferred) or wait the next > release and fix the spec to include them? Just wait until the next release. Fedora doesn't have a policy on this unlike Debian, we just don't ship the license files if they're not present upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review