https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #1) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of > licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Documents/fedora/986165-jackson- > annotations/licensecheck.txt > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Fixed in spec file; has it been reported upstream? > [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > Note: Found : Packager: Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> That's my local .rpmmacros. > jackson-annotations.noarch: W: self-obsoletion jackson2-annotations <= 2.2.2 > obsoletes jackson2-annotations = 2.2.2 Can you fix this? Spec file should read: Obsoletes: jackson2-annotations < %{version} Provides: jackson2-annotations = %{version} As per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages Please fix it before importing. Package approved. -- 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=gHMPFtQdwg&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review