https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328350 --- Comment #2 from Scott K Logan <logans@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- re Licensing: Good catch. I think the Fedora guidelines[1] are actually pretty clear here. The package should be dual-licensed and annotated, which I have changed. re Naming: I had hoped to follow the other ROS underlay packages, but maybe the right move is to migrate them to the current naming scheme. In any case, I changed the package to be called python-osrf-pycommon (this had the side effect of making rpmlint happier). Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-osrf-pycommon/python-osrf-pycommon.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-osrf-pycommon/python-osrf-pycommon-0.1.2-1.fc25.src.rpm koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13882771 rpmlint output: 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thanks, --scott [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios -- 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