https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865893 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Timothy St. Clair from comment #3) > Please address the ! items listed below. If it's not permissible for > upstream to make changes, please note in comments. > > --------------------------------------------- > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > > --- Notes: ---- > Might want to address with upstream to adjust because > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ > is considered "retired" in place for some other public domain license. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > --------------- > > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of > licensecheck in /home/tstclair/work/spaces/hbase/high-scale-lib-rpm > /review-high-scale-lib/licensecheck.txt > > --- Notes: ---- > Missing clause on the top of some sources. > --------------- Thanks! when upstream solve this problem. adjust license field > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > > --- Notes: ---- > 1.1.5 is available. > --------------- yes, when is available in a stable branch, i don't want use 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review