https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779 --- Comment #8 from Greg Bailey <gbailey@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Anoop C S from comment #3) > Hi Greg, > > [1] rpmlint warns about missing man pages for git-restore-mtime-bare and > git-restore-mtime-core binaries. Was that intentional? Please feel free to > add man pages in case you missed. > > git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-bare > Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. > > git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-core > Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. I've removed git-restore-mtime-bare and git-restore-mtime-core from packaging, as they are intended for proof-of-concept purposes and not meant to be packaged. https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/commit/46b8cdf03b6a44d58f07207815df2eaa6b8e2f43 > [2] rpmlint also warns about mismatch in version from changelog entry and > created binary rpm. > git-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160215gitea09519 > ['0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc23', '0-0.1.20160215gitea09519'] Changelog entries fixed. (In reply to Anoop C S from comment #5) > licensecheck.txt on running fedora-review: > > Unknown or generated > -------------------- > git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/README.md I'm not sure this is valid; the README.md specifies GPLv3+. (In reply to Anoop C S from comment #6) > Package Review > ============== > > [-]: 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: You must have one LICENSE file in source. Fixed (via upstream pull request) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. > licensecheck.txt complains about two files under "Unknown or generated" > section. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c5 > Can you please correct this? Fixed. Not sure why README.md is listed. > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. > Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c3 Fixed. > [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required Fixed; removed. > Note: May be you can provide all reuqires in a single line. Requires moved to single line. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c4. rpmlint output is now clean. > Generic: > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > Note: Please do so. Done via pull request. New package: Spec URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/git-tools/0-0.2/git-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/git-tools/0-0.2/git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc23.src.rpm -- 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