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=469471 --- Comment #9 from D Haley <mycae@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-28 19:09:20 EDT --- Spec: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/skinlf-4.spec SRPM: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/skinlf-6.7-4.fc9.src.rpm * Sat Nov 29 2008 <mycae(a!t)yahoo.com> 6.7-4 - Updated BuildRequires to inlcude laf-plugin - Silence several rpmlint errors - ASL 2.0 vs Apache Source Licence 2.0 - Fix arch - Fix EOL on docs. >build seems to error out aswell without laf-plugin installed so shouldnt that >also have a BuildRequires on it? Fixed rpmlint: $ rpmlint -iv ../SRPMS/skinlf-6.7-4.fc9.src.rpm skinlf.src: I: checking $ rpmlint -iv ../RPMS/noarch/skinlf-6.7-4.fc9.noarch.rpm skinlf.noarch: I: checking $ rpmlint -iv skinlf.spec Known issues : comment 3 >>skinlf.i386: W: invalid-license Apache >Not fixed -- I am unsure how to proceed here. If you examine the LICENSE file >in the source, it isn't Apache, contrary to what's on their website [2]. Its a >redistributable with attribution licence, which doesn't appear up in the >rpmlint -iv output. Which licence should I select?? -- 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