https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115121 Christopher Meng <i@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng <i@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alexey I. Froloff from comment #1) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. > > freecode says "BSD Revised", spec file says MIT, LICENSE file contains > license texts, that looks to me BSD-like. freecode page is being maintained > by upstream, so I'd say it's "BSD". Corrected. > And not really a bug, just complains from fedora-review: > > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM > > %description > -Osh is an enhanced, backward-compatible port of the Sixth Edition Thompson > -shell. Sh6 is an unenhanced port of the shell, and glob6 is a port of > +Osh(1) is an enhanced, backward-compatible port of the Sixth Edition > Thompson > +shell. Sh6(1) is an unenhanced port of the shell, and glob6(1) is a port of > its global command. Together, sh6 and glob6 provide a user interface which > is XD I used this as the first version, then I deleted those manpage numbers. I'd like to keep the current style. NEW SPEC URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/osh.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/osh-20140410-2.fc21.src.rpm -- 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