https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795390 --- Comment #1 from Breno <brandfbb@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Adam, Here are some minor issues, apart from them, it seems fine. Smaller description: "Also, please make sure that there are no lines in the description longer than 80 characters." from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description There's a "dot" in the middle of the description. I am not sure if there's a purpose for that. rpmlint complains about "GPL-2+noA", here is the list of licenses https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses. All rpmlint warnings: Rpmlint ------- Checking: topline-0.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm topline-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm topline-debugsource-0.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm topline-0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm topline.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) grapher -> graphed, graph er, graph-er topline.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C per-core/NUMA CPU and disk utilization plain-text grapher topline.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2+noA topline.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/topline.1.gz topline-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2+noA topline-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2+noA topline.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) grapher -> graphed, graph er, graph-er topline.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C per-core/NUMA CPU and disk utilization plain-text grapher topline.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2+noA 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
