https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294054 Honggang LI <honli@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(honli@xxxxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #6 from Honggang LI <honli@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neil Horman from comment #5) > Generic: > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > <NH> Instead of just adding the COPYING file to the srpm, you need to propose > that this be done upstream. All the source files seem to agree with it, so > its likely ok, but we shouldn't carry a COPYING file thats not in the upstream > project if we can help it. > I had sent an email to upstream maintainer about the blank COPYING and AUTHORS file. Hope "Tatyana E. Nikolova" <tatyana.e.nikolova@xxxxxxxxx> will populate COPYING with a appropriate license. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > <NH> Add a comment to the SPEC file indicating that the binaries are > licensed as GPLv2 in the %files section Will fix it as required. > [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > Technically I think this passes, but it seems a bit odd to call the package > libiwpm when there are no libraries in the package. Perhaps rename the > package to iwpmd? Yes, the name is odd. It dose not include any library. And that is why we do not install the header files. As it had been imported into RHEL-6.8 with name "libiwpm", I'd prefer to keep the name. > I prefixed my comments with <NH>. I think if you take care of the licensing > and the name issue, we should be good to go. -- 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