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=598511 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-11-07 04:32:05 EST --- rpmlint now stands at libgtextutils.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Assaf -> Assad, Assam, Assai libgtextutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fastx -> fast, fasts, fast x libgtextutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Assaf -> Assad, Assam, Assai libgtextutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fastx -> fast, fasts, fast x libgtextutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. The shlib issue and the compilation flags have been fixed. (In reply to comment #8) > The query I still have is over the licensing. Rpmlint complains that the value > you suggested - AGPLv3+ - is not valid. The choice seems to be: "AGPLv3" or > "AGPLv3 with exceptions" Well, rpmlint is not the canonical source for these kinds of issues. It's a tool targeted at all distributions using RPM, so it doesn't handle Fedora specific stuff well. The Fedora Licensing page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing does as well have only AGPLv1, AGPLv3 and AGPLv3 with exceptions, but all other GNU licenses seem to have the + versions that indicate that also later versions are accepted. The license of libgtextutils contains This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. so I would really put AGPLv3+, although it makes rpmlint cry. Please fix this issue before git import. The package has been APPROVED PS. One tiny nit-pick jumped to my eye: the empty line after %description is IMHO unnecessary; you don't have one in -devel. -- 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