https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057991 Kenjiro Nakayama <knakayam@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(knakayam@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #16 from Kenjiro Nakayama <knakayam@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Updated Updated Spec URL: http://kenjiro.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/the_silver_searcher/the_silver_searcher.spec Updated SRPM URL: http://kenjiro.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/the_silver_searcher/the_silver_searcher-0.21.0-1.20140421git.fc20.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6761103 ~~~ > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1057991-the_silver_searcher/licensecheck.txt Changed License: ASL 2.0 -> License: ASL 2.0 and BSD > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. It means to "0.16-2" in the changelog? I changed "0.16-2 -> 0.16.0-2". I checked [1] and compared with my changelogs. But sorry if I misunderstood. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. I did not add %check section for the following reason. 1. Upstream's test suite is bloken[2] now. 2. The test suite looks not so important, just creating a few dummy files and search them. If I should include %check section to test them, I will submit patch to upstream. [2] https://github.com/ggreer/the_silver_searcher/issues/388 ~~~ Thanks, Kenjiro -- 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