https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352408 --- Comment #6 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #5) > > lasem.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblasem-0.4.so.4.0.3 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 > probably can be filled to upstream https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=768591 > > lasem.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/lasem/COPYING > MUST be filled bug to upstream. Every file in src/ has incorrect FSF address https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=768590 > > I think I do - otherwise the directory ownership guideline [2] might be violated I think. lasem puts files in %{_datadir}/gtk-doc but does not depend on it, so it needs to own it. %doc only owns the lasem-0.4 folder. > I think with %doc it's not needed. Why? %doc or no %doc, files are getting placed in a folder which could be left dangling if package is uninstalled. > There is bundled itex2mml in sources, add following: > Licese: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ Not sure about this one... As per COPYING.itex2mml, itex2mml is tri-licensed: GPL, MPL and LGPL, with no version specified. On the other hand, licensecheck says it's GPLv3+ > Provides: bundled(itex2mml) = 1.4.5 > %license itex2mml/COPYING.itex2mml Agreed -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx