https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021244 Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- Mostly similar to the aspell-fi review feedback: [...] No older/retired package or stalled review request with the same name could be located. No other package includes conflicting files: # repoquery --whatprovides /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/la* # $ rpmls -p aspell-la-20020503-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/la.dat -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/la.multi -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/la.rws -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/la_affix.dat -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/aspell-0.60/latin.alias drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/aspell-la -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/aspell-la/COPYING -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/aspell-la/Copyright The packaging style (e.g. arch-specific, deps, -debuginfo disabled) matches the other aspell-* packages. aspell-la.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/aspell-la/COPYING aspell-la.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/aspell-la/Copyright -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address With the last release being from 2002-2004, probably not much will happen related to that. > License: GPLv2 The README points at file "Copyright" for the "exact terms", and that one contains the "or (at your option) any later version" clause. That would be "GPLv2+". However: Considering that the GPLv3 has been released later than 2004, and the web page doesn't contain the "or later version" clause, the file Copyright is likely just a cut'n'paste error. aspell-cs for example gets it right and has dropped the "later version" clause. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification Not a big issue, just need to point that out in the review, since there are licensing clarification guidelines. A comment in the spec file above the License tag would be good. > ./configure For clarify: # Custom configure script, %configure cannot and need not be used. ./configure So, no issues that need another build for review. About the extra comments and the URL, that's up to you and may be touched before/after importing the package into dist git. APPROVED -- 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