https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197471 --- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- First, the main license in tonto-1.44/doc/LICENSE.txt file is not the Artistic license described on Fedora wiki - license texts differ. Fedora legal should check if this license is free software license and whether it is compatible with GPL or not. They will either add a new license tag or permit use of existing Artistic tag. Other minor issues found so far: 1. You should use %{version} in source URLs, this will make updating package easier. 2. get-source1.sh should have "mktemp -d" instead of pure mktemp. mktemp without -d creates regular file 3. %{name} should be used in the whole spec file, but especially in paths. This is to minimize changes needed when the package is renamed (eg. when introducing compat package or SCL-izing package) 4. desktop files should not use --vendor tag, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage 5. missing %license in javadoc subpackage rpmlint output: tonto.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(acme-IntHashtable) tonto.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(acme-ImageEncoder) tonto.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(acme-GifEncoder) tonto.src:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(acme-GifEncoderHashitem) tonto.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tonto-font.tar.gz tonto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tonto 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. I'll continue with the review once licensing is cleared out. -- 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