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=617942 Stanislav Ochotnicky <socho...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <socho...@redhat.com> 2010-08-02 09:18:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > NEEDSWORK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > > license. > > > > I am sorry I haven't noticed this when I was doing > > osgi-support...LICENSE file has 2 licenses, but 2nd license only > > applies to non-existant file (XMLSchema.dtd). Therefore: > > * spec file should only have ASL 2.0 as a license > > * upstream should be contacted so that they can fix the issue > > > > I didn't check for existence of that file while doing osgi-support > > review (my bad). > > Fixed. > > No problem. I noticed it too, but didn't ask further questions in the > osgi-support review. Fixed it there, too. Great. > > NEEDSWORK: Each package must consistently use macros. > > > > again that bug in rpmstubby...rm in one place %{__rm} in another one... > > Fixed. Package is good now, APPROVED. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
