https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087823 gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: unzip See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Please ,remove this BR [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 94 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1087823-lucene3/licensecheck.txt If in a second time this package should provides other libraries, should be update license field [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Please, install license also in javadoc sub package [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please, use (e.g.) install -pm 0644 dev-tools/maven/lucene/core/pom.xml.template $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-lucene-core.pom Please fix these problems before import time -- 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