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=529496 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-27 06:01:28 EDT --- With "confirm the licensing in the source files" I actually refer to the Appendix of the GPL and LGPL. Worth reading. And it's true, I'm not a reviewing-monkey who only follows an incomplete checklist of stuff to examine. > I didn't get those warnings Try again. They are printed with default %optflags on Fedora 11. Plain rpmbuild. Not even mock is necessary. You could also follow the guidelines and submit a scratch-build in the official Fedora Build System "koji": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join > rpmlint > Warnings not always need to be fixed. The ReviewGuidelines (which are not specific to package reviewers, because packagers ought to review their own packages, too), say: | MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should | be posted in the review.[1] The second part of that rule is just a "should", but if you are in search of a sponsor, you ought to follow such recommendations and do this homework. At the same time you could explain why you don't fix things rpmlint reports. > Strange, I don't have that in my .spec file. Maybe I send an outdated one. I explicitly referred to the pkgconfig file, NOT the .spec file. Take your time when reading reviews, don't rush. -- 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