https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034523
--- Comment #10 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kcham...@redhat.com> --- (In reply to Kashyap Chamarthy from comment #9) > (In reply to Lars Kellogg-Stedman from comment #8) > > Kashyap: As we had discussed on IRC, I think most of the points in comment > > #6 were addressed weeks ago. I just remembered, assuming the below is the latest SPEC https://raw.github.com/larsks-packages/sqlcli/review/sqlcli-2-2/sqlcli.spec these two points are still valid :) (1) s/GPLv3/GPLv3+ # This you agreed to on IRC, as an upstream author. (2) LICENSE file not included ==== $ ls sqlcli BUILD dependencies licensecheck.txt review-env.sh rpmlint.txt srpm upstream build.log files.dir results review.txt rpms-unpacked srpm-unpacked upstream-unpacked $ tree sqlcli | grep LICENSE $ echo $? 1 ==== > Are you sure you're testing against the > > updated package sources? See comment #4; you'll note that rpmlint only > > throws the "sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli" warning > > against this spec file. > > > Lars, you're right - I incorrectly misremembered from our IRC conv. that > there's something waiting on your side. > > I just re-ran with explicit SPEC file: > > $ fedora-review --rpm-spec -n sqlcli-2-2.fc19.src.rpm > > > And, yes: > > $ grep "rpmlint\ sqlcli" /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sqlcli/review.txt -A4 > # rpmlint sqlcli > sqlcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sqlcli > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > Will post the manual review, sorry for this delay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
