https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179982 --- Comment #18 from Simon Farnsworth <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #16) > (In reply to Simon Farnsworth from comment #15) > > There are two remaining complaints from rpmlint, then the package passes: > > > > 1. COPYING is only included in a %license tag, which means it doesn't > > appear in /usr/share/doc … > > You seem to be wrong in that point. There's a new guideline to use %license > for all license texts, this was introduced some weeks ago. For F21, it's > like a SHOULD currently but I think it will become a requirement in near > future: "If the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its > own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package must be included in %license." > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > Looks like F21's fedora-review is not up to date with this change - it's complaining that COPYING isn't in /usr/share/doc. Will ignore, as it's in /usr/share/licenses, and it looks like the guidelines are up to date. > > 2. The binary's permissions are 0775, not 0755. > > Will be fixed in the next upload. > > > With these two complaints fixed, the package passes review. > > Please do not forget to execute the fedora-review tool after the formal > things got fixed. This tool found a lot of not obvious issues in my other > packages. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer Every time I respond, I've been looking at the output from fedora-review. These are the last two complaints it has, and none of the manual check entries look wrong to me. -- 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