https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108781
Christopher Meng <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #4) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) > > Issues: > > ======= > > - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in > > its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for > > the > > package is included in %doc. > > Note: Cannot find LICENSE.txt in rpm(s) > > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > > > --> FP. > > Actually, the license text IS in the packages, but the spec file uses the > new %license macro, and fedora-review doesn't yet understand that macro. > See bug 1127916. Take a look at the %files sections, and you'll see that > both LICENSE.txt and COPYRIGHT.txt go into both packages. Oops. I think I should write false positive instead of FP there... I will set this to approved but please take a look at rpmlint: python-ZODB.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ZODB/interfaces.py~ -- 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 [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
