https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779 --- Comment #12 from Greg Bailey <gbailey@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Anoop, Thanks for the analysis and pointers to further information re: licensecheck. I checked out licensecheck against the git-tools README.md file on an Ubuntu machine, and the version there flags README.md as "README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN", even with the suggested addition you provided. I think it's sufficient to say that the existing README.md references the correct license, and that that license matches GPLv3+ as specified in the .spec file. I'm hesitant to submit a pull request for it upstream because it's essentially a change only to satisfy the fedora-review tool, and we can manually verify the license referenced in README.md anyway. Regarding the version numbers, upsteam only has one lightweight tag, "v2015.2", and it's obviously a bit old. There's a request to tag a new version: https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/issues/15 Since I don't know what that new tag will be ("v2016.3" or higher, presumably), I opted to use the version and release numbering suggestions given by: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages (See the provided example for the "kismet" RPM there). My thinking was that once upstream releases "v2016.3" (or "v2016.4", etc.), then I would change the RPM Version tag to "2016.3" and use a RPM Release tag of "1", etc. from that point forward. Thanks again for your help! -- 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