https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015778 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Initial notes: * License - It seems that the correct license tag for -doc subpackage should be "ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+ and MIT". Would you check this? (see attached) Also, it is preferred that some explanation is written on spec file about some detailed license information (or including license information notes in source rpm) * Note that the licenses of files under test/data is somewhat unclear. Looking at linkparse.txt first and next the rest files, it seems that these files are copied from python openid (see: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/heraldry/libraries/python/openid/trunk/openid/test/linkparse.txt https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/heraldry/libraries/python/openid/trunk/COPYING ). For now I don't think this is a blocker, however please try to clarify. * Improper Obsoletes - Obsoletes: ruby-openid = 2.1.7-11 obsoletes "ruby-openid = 2.1.7-11" _only_ (not "no more than"). * Filtering depedendency from examples/ directory - The common way for this is to remove executable permission bits from all files under examples/ directory. * Notes for documents - Files like "INSTALL.md" is in most cases not needed, because we install the software using packaged rpm (i.e. not by following the method written in INSTALL.md) - I recommend to move "README.md" to main package, because it says "README", indicating the upstream want users to read this. -- 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