https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277933 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- NON blocking issues: - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION - If (and only 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 is included in %license. Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1277933-R-praise/licensecheck.txt All source files are without license headers. Please, inform upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s and ask to add license headers in those files where is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define packname praise Please, fix before import -- 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