https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381
--- Comment #15 from Clément DAVID <c.davi...@gmail.com> ---
Hi gil,
I update the spec and srpm file to fix the %{?dist} issue.
Issues:
=======
> [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
> in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
> for the package is included in %doc.
> Note: Cannot find licenses in rpm(s)
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
LICENSE.txt is present as %doc in the main package and sub-packages
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
> found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames
A comment is present which clarify this thing accordingly to the guidelines.
> [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
> Note: Source0 (jogl-v2.0-rc10.tar.7z)
Renamed to provide both jogl and jogl2 packages.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
