Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895166 --- Comment #1 from Russell Harrison <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- There are a few things I wanted to address flagged from my run of fedora-review. [ ]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rharriso/rpmbuild/review-rubygem-zbxapi/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Upstream doesn't include the license file and I will contact them about including it as well as adding the appropriate headers to the other three files. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests for this gem so %check is absent for now. [!]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %{gem_libdir} I have included the macros for EPEL 6 support only in order to maintain a common spec file across branches. F17 and greater still use the macros from the rubygem-devel package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1PI3zhn0eo&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review