https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087823
gil cattaneo <punto...@libero.it> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo <punto...@libero.it> ---
Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: unzip
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Please ,remove this BR
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache
(v2.0) BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (3 clause)",
"BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 94 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1087823-lucene3/licensecheck.txt
If in a second time this package should provides other libraries,
should be update license field
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Please, install license also in javadoc sub package
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Please, use (e.g.)
install -pm 0644 dev-tools/maven/lucene/core/pom.xml.template
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-lucene-core.pom
Please fix these problems before import time
--
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
