https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097368 --- Comment #16 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to John Morris from comment #15) > All builds pass [1,2,3,4]. > > fedora-review output pasted below. Issues follow. I'll only insist on the > first one. > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla > upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for > licenses manually. > *** License should be lgpl v2.1, but listed as GPLv2 Don't know how that one got missed through the RPM Fusion review... oh well. > [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in smesh-doc > *** Do doc packages really need this? I see it glossed over in other > reviews [5]. No, bad things happen when you create an arch dependency from a noarch package. It only applies if both packages are arch packages. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > *** Justification for smesh-5.1.2.2-pi_to_m_pi.patch? Seems obvious to me, > but might be worth mentioning its author. I'm the author and I'm not worried too much. Ideally it would go upstream but it's not particularly active. In this case I think the patch name is sufficient. > Rpmlint: > smesh.i686: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib/libDriver.so.5.1 > *** Looks OK to me; am I missing something? > $ldd libDriver.so.5.1 | grep libc > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb740c000) Might be a false positive there... rpmlint -I library-not-linked-against-libc didn't help and it hasn't been a problem in the past so I'm tempted to ignore it for now. > smesh.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/smesh/LICENCE.lgpl.txt > *** Notify upstream > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address As mentioned, upstream is not active but I'll see if I can find a bug tracker. -- 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