https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876317 --- Comment #6 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Actually I think it would be better for you do a tarball, also have to > > provide the license text in a single file :) > > I guess I can. But there is no upstream tarball -- this _is_ the source > distribution. Hmmm; there's also a license ambiguity, as the web site > clearly says Apache 2.0 but the code itself is an MIT-style license. > > > Please remove the macro %defattr from %files, can give the appropriate > > permissions in %prep > > Yep. Old habits die hard. :) Hi Mathew You should contact upstream to include the license, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text In this case, you must document how to generate the tarball in the spec https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > And remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from %install, is obsolete, and is only > > used if the package is for EPEL5 > > That I think I'll keep, because I see no reason this wouldn't be useful in > EPEL5. In this case should follow the guidelines for EPEL5 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specific_guidelines -- 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