https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322846 --- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc@xxxxxxxxx> --- Created attachment 1145788 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1145788&action=edit licensecheck output Comment about licensecheck - [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 454 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1322846-SuperLUMT/SuperLUMT/licensecheck.txt ---> This list is not completely correct. In the attachment, only the CBLAS files are missing license headers. While the other files listed do not have the full license text, they DO in fact contain license headers "Copyright (c) 2003, The Regents of the University of California, through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required approvals from U.S. Dept. of Energy) All rights reserved. The source code is distributed under BSD license, see the file License.txt at the top-level directory." This is, of course, what we (Antonio and I) had requested upstream developers and they obliged. Also take a look at the rpmlint messages. There are one or two that can be fixed. For example, SuperLUMT-double.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package contains double precision real SuperLU routines library by SuperLUMT. ---> please fix this. -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx