https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069629 --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb <msrb@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > ISSUES: > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1069629-jenkins- > executable-war/licensecheck.txt > > License field should be BSD I just checked again and it seems to me that all content is under MIT. > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I already tried in some other Jenkins package, but upstream didn't accept my pull request with ASL 2.0 license text. Their opinion is that having licenses specified in pom.xml is enough. > > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. MIT license tag is correct in my opinion, so MIT license text should be in the package. > > Please, report to upstream to include license file @ > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS > > Please, consider changing maven-compiler-plugin configuration for use > source/target >= 1.5 No problem. -- 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