https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374948 Michal Ruprich <mruprich@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(athmanem@xxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #6 from Michal Ruprich <mruprich@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Athmane, there are some more issues mentioned in the review. I will repeat them here: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ##Described below [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 309 files have unknown license. ##1. All the files need to be licensed under the same license that is specified in the spec file (or a combination of licenses) ##2. I am not able to include this in Fedora until the binary blob is permitted by owner and licensed under Fedora permissible license (but you mentioned that in the beginning) ##3. the comment about 309 files without license i because there are no license(s) texts in each file [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ##Mentioned above [!]: Package functions as described. ##From my point of view I am unable to test this - I would need a working cisco router iso image and those are proprietary and not available, but I may be wrong [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. ##Add the check section if possible Please have a look at these. Thanks Michal -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx