Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468597 --- Comment #2 from S.A. Hartsuiker <sahartsu@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-26 13:07:40 EDT --- RPM Lint: quiet Package name: ok Spec file: ok License: MIT Actual License: MIT %doc License: MIT-LICENSE file (see below) Spec file language: ok Spec file readable: ok Upstream source vs. used tarball: ok (md5: 928b6f90c61593059d8668dc70ebf337) Compile and Build: - F-8: ok - F-9: ok - F-10: ok - rawhide: ok - EL-5: n/a Applicable Package Guidelines: ok Locales: n/a Shared libs: ok Relocatable: no Directory and file ownership: ok No duplicate files in %files: ok File Permissions: ok Macro usage: ok Code vs. Content: ok (Large) Documentation: n/a %doc affecting runtime: ok Header files in -devel package: n/a Static Libraries in -static package: n/a pkgconfig Requires: n/a Library files: ok Devel requires base package: n/a .la libtool archives: n/a Duplicate ownership of files/directories: ok Remove BuildRoot: ok UTF-8 filenames: ok You forgot to package the MIT-LICENSE file. Please include it as a %doc. Otherwise the package is ok now. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review