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 Fedoraemail@example.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review