https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495 --- Comment #6 from Yogaraj Alamenda <yogarajx.alamenda@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #5) > It's already been pointed out that the review tool won't work correctly > until: > > - it can download the raw text of the spec file > - it can build the package, which requires qatlib to be available > > You also haven't posted a link to the SRPM. Please follow the template. > > Spec URL: <spec info here> > SRPM URL: <srpm info here> > Description: <description here> > Fedora Account System Username: > > Also, can you clarify if the intent of the spec file license comment is to > override the default MIT license specified by the FPCA? I still recommend > removing that if you're willing to. It's completely acceptable for the spec > file to be under the default MIT license, and the software it is building be > under a different license. Unfortunately, the SRPM is not posted in public repo which we will take care from next release. Is it possible for you to generate SRPM from the specfile provided. Or if you can help us doing a manual review and give a go ahead with review comments we will address and post it in the QAT Engine Public Github Repo along with SRPM in the next release. And we intend to keep the license if it is not mandatory to remove it. -- 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
