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=479585





--- Comment #5 from Jochen Schmitt <joc...@herr-schmitt.de>  2009-01-11 
15:40:28 EDT ---
OK, the local build works fine now, But you should really add a 'BuildArch:
noarch' on your package, because it's doesn't contains any archtecture
depending content.

The complaints of rpmlint agains the binary rpm sill exist. The same issue are
the licensing issues because the sources contains no copyright notive and the
upstream package contains no verbatin copy of the license text. Even of the
project homepage i couldN't find any hint about the licensing state of the
package. for will emphasis, taht this is a very severe issue.

At last: Please increase the release counter if you are releasing a new source
rpm.

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to