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=717019 --- Comment #1 from Jan F. Chadima <jchadima@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-13 07:16:15 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. OK: Warnings are the missing documentation and non stripped binaries. rpmlint outputs are attached. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK: The package name is according all naming guidelines. MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK: The spec file name match the requested name. MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. ? OK: The package mostly fits all guidelines there are some exceptions found by the rpmlint. MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . FAIL: The license is inconsistent, mentions GPLv2, which is incompatible with. It is basically a non-commercial-only license. MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. FAIL: The GPLv2 is mentioned in the spec file, the above licence is in the package. I reccomend to work with legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to solve the licensing problem. -- 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