https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2296364 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan@xxxxxxxxx> --- [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "ISC License". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/erlang-hut/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ISC License is missing. I'm not sure if the inline for erlang.mk covers this requirement. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2296364 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202296364%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
