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=564520 --- Comment #22 from Mark Rader <msrader@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-01 09:34:17 EDT --- All The latest rpmlint output is as follows: rpmlint frama-c.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/frama-c-1.4-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/frama-c-devel-1.4-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm ../SRPMS/frama-c-1.4-1.fc12.src.rpm frama-c.x86_64: W: invalid-license QPL with modifications frama-c.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/frama-c.byte frama-c.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/frama-c-gui.byte frama-c.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/frama-c/plugins/Ltl_to_acsl.cmxs frama-c-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license QPL with modifications frama-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation frama-c.src: W: invalid-license QPL with modifications 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings As stated before the QPL modifications do not seem to be an issue. They just make the license less restrictive. I have the code stripping two of the binaries but the unstripped binarys appear to be libraries especially the last one. I will post the latest update to the package this weekend. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review