https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301 --- Comment #4 from David King <amigadave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #3) > License tag is incorrect, if I checked correctly it should be: >… Thanks for that! I would normally trim this down a bit to the effective license of the binary, which in this case would allow dropping of the LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ bits (as all the files under those licenses are built into a binary with GPLv3+ code, and effectively GPLv3+). However, this probably needs too much careful examination of licenses to maintain well. In any case, fixed now. > Other than that, please use %license for the COPYING file, rather than %doc. Cool, this was not part of the licensing guidelines the last time I checked, so fixed too. > Finally, that #VCS comment seems wrong, unless you're packaging cheese > again. :) Whoops! Fixed now. Scratch build, including the changes, and a 32-bit build fix from upstream (also reuploaded in place): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8707142 -- 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