Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: liblicense - License for storing and retrieving license information in media files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446993 ------- Additional Comments From redhat@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-29 20:46 EST ------- I uploaded a 0.7.0-2 .spec and SRPM, and when I build it here is the rpmlint output: paulproteus@f8:~/gitted/liblicense $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/liblicense-0.7.0-2.src.rpm paulproteus@f8:~/gitted/liblicense $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/liblicense-*0.7.0-2* liblicense-cli.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-devel.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-modules.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-python.i386: W: no-documentation As you wrote, it is okay to have no documentation on the subpackages. And other than that, rpmlint reports no problems. The 0.7.0-2 files are: SRPM: http://labs.creativecommons.org/~paulproteus/liblicense/liblicense-0.7.0-2.src.rpm Spec: http://labs.creativecommons.org/~paulproteus/liblicense/liblicense-0.7.0-2.spec Let me know what the next steps I need to take are. As I understand it, I'm waiting for another review; I was impressed with how speedy the first one was! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review