https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223461 --- Comment #7 from Humble Chirammal <hchiramm@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the review! Most of the discrepancies wrt license file has been resolved by an upstream change. Here is some details about other reported issues. 1) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- Corrected 2) 2) Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gluster => Fix this by changing in %files %{python2_sitelib}/gluster/gfapi/ to %{python2_sitelib}/gluster --------------------- The gluster module is owned by another package called 'python-gluster' which is a dependent package of this- python-gluster-api rpm. I have documented the same in spec file. 3) # unit and functional test files are part of source, however we are not packaging it, so adding them in # exclude. %exclude %{buildroot}/test/ %exclude %{buildroot}/functional_tests.sh %exclude %{buildroot}/test-requirements.txt %exclude %{buildroot}/tox.ini %exclude %{buildroot}/unittests.sh ====================================== Removed the 'exclude' section from latest spec file. 4) 4) I checked all 3 .py files and found each source file having "ASL 2.0" license header and also source tarball contains now "LICENSE" file. => Change license tag to "ASL 2.0" in %files change %license COPYING-GPLV2 COPYING-LGPLV3 to %license LICENSE -------------------------------- This went away with the latest upstream change http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10256/ 5) 5) When you submit update, you need to increase release tag to 2 and add new changelog entry for today's date and log as "Fix issues for this package review" ----------- Done. Can you please re review this request? -- 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