https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 --- Comment #15 from Clément DAVID <c.david86@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi gil, I update the spec and srpm file to fix the %{?dist} issue. Issues: ======= > [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) > for the package is included in %doc. > Note: Cannot find licenses in rpm(s) > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text LICENSE.txt is present as %doc in the main package and sub-packages > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses > found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames A comment is present which clarify this thing accordingly to the guidelines. > [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Source0 (jogl-v2.0-rc10.tar.7z) Renamed to provide both jogl and jogl2 packages. -- 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