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=226568 --- Comment #7 from Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-16 09:38:17 EDT --- rpmlint output: xmlto.spec:61: E: files-attr-not-set - The %doc has to be below the %defattr xmlto.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxslt - OK xmlto-tex.i686: W: no-documentation - OK 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. License is still not ok: xmlto.in contains a GPLv2+ header, butxmlif.l and xmlif.c do not contain any license information Are they really GPLv2+, too? They seem to be individual programs to me. Can you get the original author to verify the license and add license headers then? Here is a howto for GPL licensing: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review